Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
she's really close to piers morgan's zone, it's impressive
who reckons Morgan would actually be a bit of a laugh to have a few jars with?
I just don't think he's a through-and-through evil wankstaff of a bloke. Sure, he's a danger to journalism and puts on a smug, OTT persona for the cameras, but that's clearly for show. Few jagers and you'd be joking about and jiving back-to-back on the dancefloor with him as Haddaway's What Is Love? blared. All I'm saying.
I'm not even going to dignify the rest of her 'piece' with a response. 'bolly'
When I was a teenager in the 80s my old man subscribed to some monthly magazine from Britain, I forget what it was called, I don't think it was very long-lived. I used to read it after him every month and she wrote a column it. They were quite good, provocative, but interesting and lacking in all the bile and bitterness that seems to pervade everything of her's I come across these days.
I read The Boy Looked at Johnny about the same time and remember quite enjoying it, but who knows what I'd think of it now. She's fucked off about something that happened in her life I reckon.
Burchill, Cosmo Landesman and Toby Young all wrote for it in the early 90's.
Thought it was a bit earlier than the dates given in Wiki, but the tagline of "low culture for highbrows" I remember. Dad must have stopped his subscription before it finished up, because I don't recall the apparently famous Liz Hurley edition.
^ just state you believe it to be in breach of clause 12 of the editors code of conduct because of the string of transphobic slurs : "tranny", "shemale", "shim", "dick in chick's clothing", "imagined" woman, "phantom limb", "bedwetter in a bad wig", "man" [when referring to transwomen], "cock cut off and then pleading special privileges as women".
^ just tell them their cynical publication of hate speech in order to garner more page views and advertising revenue is really obvious and that you expect them to print a full apology and donate the equivalent of the total advertising value of the article to a relevant charity or group.
thought `what the fuck?`
that's all really
It reminds me of Yoshimi battles the pink robots.
The article its deplorable though.
are we really surprised, though? she's hardly known for her level-headed objectivity.
and the whole thing was a storm in a teacup anyway.
I'm not really sure why Julie Burchill things wading into the debate with a load of insults is going to help...
that's all it is
Suzanne Moore was wrong to say what she said, but I understand why it's been so badly and widely misinterpreted. This has just completely unnecessarily blown everything up again.
A troubling aspect of it (aside from the transphobia, obviously) is her hatred of ANYONE BETTER EDUCATED THAN HER.
I certainly don't think it deserves anything like the storm it kicked up. But this just makes her look guilty by association.
which isn't to say i think it 'deserved' whatever storm it generated, as most twitter-generated controversies don't. but it still sounds like a stupid, facile comment that doesn't merit defending; if nothing else, it's just absurdly inaccurate and back-to-front as an example of female beauty standards, given that the majority of 'brazilian transsexuals' in the real world are vastly more likely to be mocked, marginalized and physically attacked for not looking enough like our cultural image of a 'real women' than to be held up as images of aspirational perfection. and while this burchill shite is quite obviously a horribly cynical page-view grabber, i think it's also a rather apt illustration of certain attitudes that often lie behind calls for 'solidarity' that accuse marginalized groups of petty divisiveness. if suzanne moore really is serious about 'solidarity' i assume she'll be publishing a strong repudiation of having her name used in support of such an explicitly divisive piece of writing
and also, i don't necessarily disagree with some of the points that moore tries to make in that article, in and of themselves, but i think it's cynical as fuck and all-too-common that this passion for solidarity and unity only surfaces when someone is under fire for saying something that happens to rather go against the principles of cross-group solidarity
Reads like a dead-eyed Year 5 calling the special kid every bad word she has managed to memorise in the playground. Not just hateful, but almost delusional- where the hell does "lovely big swinging PHDs" even come from?
(but yes, there are)
it's not their fault they're smarter than you. Don't get a victim complex.
There's also no `to be fair` applicable to this article really.
besides, of the two people who are really good at this stuff an whose qualifications i know of, neither have done masters
She attacks all transexuals, doesn't single out or describe any who are "swinging about" a PHD. It's a weird, isolated anti-intellectual drunken haymaker that says a great deal more about the author than anyone else.
where she complained about 'university educated feminists with interesting earrings'. Obviously that's not on the same level as this, but she seems to have a real problem with anyone educated beyond her level. Baffling.
It's pretty common amongst anti-intellectuals from the right.
but I can understand why people do.
(it certainly isn't 'a lot of people'), and it just makes you sound really bitter at having being repeatedly beaten in debates by people who are smarter than you.
LLB (Hons) (1st class)
S'alright, I can take a joke.
cos i'm smarter than you
because I literally had no idea what she was talking about. She seems unpleasant and I'm struggling to see what happened to make her so unpleasant in such a public venue.
It's as though she's afflicted with a form of Tourettes whereby she feels compelled to vent outrageous, politically correct opinions every week, for money.
"but we've experienced a lifetime of PMT and sexual harassment and many of us are now staring HRT and the menopause straight in the face"
shut up, JFC. I don't want to be lumped into the same category as her just because I'm also female, she's a fucking idiot.
defining womanhood in terms of PMT: gr8 feminism suzanne
so DON'T MESS WITH US, YEAH??
and deserves no more than "laughable tabloid hatemongering" and being forgotten about altogether
If only it worked that way.
but it's not news, is it? Some people are cunts, and because people love commenting on cunts, the media prints them.
...scoop of the century? I don't think transphobia will go away if people ignore Burchill. But BURCHILL eventually would, because her articles would no longer draw commentary.
And I'll probably have less of the condescension from that last sentence too, oh enlightened one.
"though I find it very hard to imagine this mob struggling with anything apart from the English language and the concept of free speech"
Seems as though she forgot that freedom of speech is not equal to freedom from criticism.
to mean ridiculous from now on.
That's fucking chronicles.
And I don't even care about trannies and that
Author: Julie Birchill.
Occurrences of the word cyberspace: two!
Reference to some twitter bullshit: check!
^This rundown of 'Caution: Utter Shit Ahead' signposting means it's difficult to muster the effort to read through to the end.
Assuming you press on, the incredibly confused and incoherent writing means that you're wanting to claw your eyes out by the end of the piece.
And I assume that's where the problem lies. Somewhere in the Observer offices there's some poor editor, whose job it was to read this before giving it the go ahead for publishing, who just couldn't stand the torture of reading yet more tedious bullshit written for a relentlessly wanky part of a desperately ropey old news site any longer, and just waved it through, begging for mercy. Little did they realise just how much of that shitty old barrel there was left still to scrape.
good band name though
underneath all the transphobia and dreadful language is the right- or otherwise- to hate. Owen Jones got told to 'walk into a fucking gorge' by a transwoman on twitter today for being seen to defend Suzanne Moore's piece on transphobia last week (which he wasn't). There's absolutely no excuse for that kind of language- from oppressed groups or anyone else, and it goes on a lot.
Obviously this piece is abhorrent, and I have complained, but... yeah.
that violence is an unavoidable, structurally integral part of the current social hierarchy; and that it is people of color who are most affected by that violence. Pacifism assumes that white people who grew up in the suburbs with all their basic needs met can counsel oppressed people, many of whom are people of color, to suffer patiently under an inconceivably greater violence, until such time as the Great White Father is swayed by the movement’s demands or pacifists achieve that legendary “critical mass.”
Are you an anarchist, DD?
that book. Where to start? Makes a hell of an impact when you read it through but christ can you think of a situation in recent history where alternatives to what he condemns have been used positively? :-/
This guy can certainly write but it's an extremely niche sentiment to suddenly quote as an answer to whether hate is acceptable.
but- and again I'm trying to say this without inadvertently saying the wrong thing- I've seen CIS men verbally abused before purely for being CIS men, and therefore an imagined 'enemy'. The 'Die CIS Scum' meme is a particularly repellent example.
I'm a CISgendered man, and I work my hardest to combat my privilege and be aware of what I'm saying and doing and the possible consequences of that, I really do. So do others. I accept that any discrimination I may face is nothing compared to how hard it must be for trans people, but that is not a reason to lump us into one discriminatory, transphobic bracket.
(Of course, I'm not suggesting that you are doing any such thing- it's just a general attitude).
Or trying to sell me insurance.
that whilst Moore and Burchill were really, really wrong, there is likewise no excuse, ever, for telling someone who hasn't done anything to you to 'traipse into a fucking gorge' from behind your computer screen. He was also attacked for being a 'heterosexual white CIS cliche', which a) he isn't and b) has fuck all to do with the issue at hand.
Not all CIS men are automatically the enemy, and I feel it would do certain online types good to realise that fact. Again, this is not aimed at you or at anyone on here.
The prefix 'cis-' isn't an acronym.
When snide superiority would rather poke fun than educate or try to shift gears to communicate better.
There'd have been more, y'know, debates
I'm sorry, I'm just not as well-versed in all of this as you, but I'm trying to get it right.
instead of lower case
you're a detestable oppressive scumbag
and it's no wonder your points were ignored
Is this now a thing?
Ps I think Gandhi has something to say about it being the preserve of the white middle class.
when they're clearly quite hateful
Plus he was around 100 years ago when attitudes were very different. And from recent events in India it seems attitudes haven't changed.
(i think we're trolling each other)
you can excuse his attitudes by the context and time they were expressed if you like, but that doesn't mean you can pick and choose his attributes. it's not like he was a great pacifist who happened to cheat on mario kart a lot, his misogynistic and racist views are in direct contradiction to everything he is supposed to represent.
Ps I know very little about Gandhi apart from he was a pacifist. No I'm bring told he was a bastard who probably kicked puppies and I don't know what to believe.
Next you'll be telling me mother Teresa was a right bitch.
i had to put sunglasses on to avoid the clunky glare of that trolling effort
It's alright it wasn't supposed to be taken seriously (as trolling or otherwise)
there is no spoon
he was pretty middle class
The 'pacifist' uprising led by (member of the ruling class) Gandhi worked in conjunction with violent direct action.
will often elicit emotionally charged responses. Whilst I agree that such language is unnecessary Suzanne Moore's responses to her original article were repulsive and genuinely upset some people, not everyone is going to make reasonable responses in the aftermath.
I wouldn't be surprised if she regretted making that statement.
it's just all too easy to flare up at someone on the internet without looking all around the issue, and it is offensive, uncalled for and damaging to solidarity.
Not that Moore and Burchill weren't those things in the first place, of course.
be bullied off twitter
she doesn't seem like a nice lady. What's her beef?
as the Justin Bieber of British politics, too.
her trolling in this thread is exquisite
Of these threads. CG needs to up his game to compete.
It's probably one of the worst facets of this board - self pompous posters who think they have an automatic right to be taken more aeriously or not have to engage is discussions correctly. That, and of course brusma.
One wonders where all of this hard study is leading to - currently it's hard to see the value of any higher education when its use is to preside smugly over others on an internet messageboard which also discusses the consistency on faeces on the same day it talks about Julie Burchill articles.
Pardon me if I don't contact the Nobel Committee.
and despite popular DiS belief, you don't have to be disingenuous to be trolling. in fact the best ones aren't.
Send me a message if you ever need this clearing up again.
i think youre probably the guy that always talks about being northern and all those muslims and everything, arent you. Not kik. The other one.
you're an idiot
oh. it's you again.
He's not engaging in discussion correctly.
In this sense the postmodern feminist left does a similar thing, casing its protest in a language most are unfamiliar with, thereby ensuring it remains necessarily hierarchical.
Toby Young and Giles Coren batting this about Twitter and saying how brilliant it is. Idiot triumvirate out in full force this morning.
but hey, it's well-written bigoted rubbish
I think it is.
some less damaging than others.
Your bigotry is fine. ANyone who holds views similar to your own, their bigotry is fine too. It's just everyone elses that's the problem, right?
while just going reddit and youtube and looking at pictures of cats?
So now the thread is irrevocably fucked.
I enjoyed that in the other threat where it made WZA looked like a massive psychopath.
is fucking risible.
Oh my. Bring back Caitlin Moran.
journalists over a certain age should attend a seminar about the internet before they're allowed anywhere near a computer.
overrides any problems with ageism, as far as I'm concerned.
It's not good.
I'd pretty much trade a sex tape for the sum total of facebook-cringe inflicted over the years
and CiF is usually pretty ridiculous
ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME HATES FREEDOM AND IS A BULLY LALALALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING LALALALALALALALALA
well done you
"It saddens me that..." in the header, too
that would have been written by the subs and/or CiF editors, not SM
so someone else gets to sum up the entire article and pick what people see before the click? surely that massively loads the preconceptions with which people read the damn thing?
Anywhere I can see what the furore is about?