| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) 01:14 - Feb 8 with 17401 views | SWBlue22 |
|  | | |  |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 08:44 - Feb 10 with 2019 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:08 - Feb 9 by redrickstuhaart |
I HATE this culture war stuff.
Which is the whole point and the reason why I am making an effort to point out where stupid non-issues are being used by people to divide. |
if you hate it so much you should stop doing it.
why is the science museum choosing to initiate a very 'stupid non-issue' and why are you backing them and in so doing dividing people?
this story has the following structure. FIRST the science museum does something stupid and ideological, then when people to object to that, you back up the science museum.
the people objecting didn't start this story. the spat is entirely two sided, and you have been very keen to get in the trench on one side of it. if there is a culture war it is entirely two sided (how could a war not be) and you are very much lined up on one side of it.
you seem to think the culture war is something only people you disagree with do. the idea that you're not involved in it is laughable - jeez, you're even determined to defend a description of the names attached to lego bricks as heteronormative. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 08:52 - Feb 10 with 1991 views | Herbivore |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 08:24 - Feb 10 by Swansea_Blue |
It’s utterly bizarre. Especially as plastic pollution and the damage it causes to animals has got nothing to do with climate change (only via emissions from production, but you get those with any straw). And it’s mostly kids who like straws anyway.
Anyway, if people have to have straws, I can highly recommend metal ones. But once, use forever. Better for the environment, better for the wallet. Job done. |
You care about animals? What are you, a communist? |  |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 08:52 - Feb 10 with 1990 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 16:21 - Feb 9 by Herbivore |
Imagine being this triggered by being asked to think about the potential impact of language and labelling. |
thinking about the potential impact of language and labelling is great and a good thing. the point is that here it has been done so crassly that it is rightly a laughing stock and has drawn a respected institution into ridicule. it needs to be much much cleverer than this. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 09:59 - Feb 10 with 1892 views | redrickstuhaart |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 08:52 - Feb 10 by lowhouseblue |
thinking about the potential impact of language and labelling is great and a good thing. the point is that here it has been done so crassly that it is rightly a laughing stock and has drawn a respected institution into ridicule. it needs to be much much cleverer than this. |
Absurd. Devoid of context. And lacking any self insight. It is only people like you and the op making something of it which plainly isnt there and is not intended which make it an issue at all.
I give up. Keep reading the Mail and lapping up tje hate. |  | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 11:08 - Feb 10 with 1822 views | DJR |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 08:44 - Feb 10 by lowhouseblue |
if you hate it so much you should stop doing it.
why is the science museum choosing to initiate a very 'stupid non-issue' and why are you backing them and in so doing dividing people?
this story has the following structure. FIRST the science museum does something stupid and ideological, then when people to object to that, you back up the science museum.
the people objecting didn't start this story. the spat is entirely two sided, and you have been very keen to get in the trench on one side of it. if there is a culture war it is entirely two sided (how could a war not be) and you are very much lined up on one side of it.
you seem to think the culture war is something only people you disagree with do. the idea that you're not involved in it is laughable - jeez, you're even determined to defend a description of the names attached to lego bricks as heteronormative. |
30 years ago an exhibition such as the following would have provoked outrage. 10 years (or perhaps even 5 years ago), it wouldn't have.
https://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/seeing-things-queerly/
It's a shame that attitudes to LGTB+ people are going backwards, and the fight against them is being led by the right wing media.
As with Brexit, my view is that people are being manipulated (for political reasons) into feeling strongly about an issue which in terms of the problems the country is facing is irrelevant.
And this has real world consequences.
https://metro.co.uk/2024/06/10/map-shows-uk-hotspots-sexual-orientation-transgen
[Post edited 10 Feb 15:45]
|  | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 11:28 - Feb 10 with 1758 views | Kievthegreat |
Using the analogy of 'male' fit into to 'female' for connectors to correctly mate IS heteronormative. There's no emotion or outrage in that statement. No right or wrong. No anger or judgment. It's a perfect example of something that is heteronormative.
If you do want to dive into more complicated avenues of discussion around the language (more so in electrical and computing), there are "gender bender"* or "gender change" connectors and "hermaphroditic" connectors. These non-conforming connectors have to end up with gender derived connectors to distinguish them from the NORMal HETEROsexual connector types.
If you want to argue that there is nothing wrong with male and female in these contexts then go ahead, but if you can't recognise a pretty well established definition of the key term this whole debate, then there's nothing much left to talk about. If we can't agree that the grass is green, then it seems silly to try and discuss whether the sky is also blue!
*This term has mostly fallen out of use thankfully as I do think it carries some level of negative charge |  | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 12:23 - Feb 10 with 1679 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 09:59 - Feb 10 by redrickstuhaart |
Absurd. Devoid of context. And lacking any self insight. It is only people like you and the op making something of it which plainly isnt there and is not intended which make it an issue at all.
I give up. Keep reading the Mail and lapping up tje hate. |
i don't read the mail.
you claim that the science museum is offering some great insight into the preconceptions that certain language promotes. i have given you a dozen reasons why i think that is not correct. i think the science museum is being juvenile. we disagree. which is fine - debate and discussion is good.
but there is something wider here. you claim you have analytical skills of linguistic deconstruction which allow you to see the way language shapes the perception of reality. but you, and others on here, are apparently completely blind to the way you constantly try to use language to delegitimise debate and disagreement.
what we've had on this thread is the usual range of attempted tricks:
someone disagrees with you - then they're ignorant
someone disagrees with you - then they can't read properly
someone disagrees with you - then they're not thinking for themselves , they're part of a woke conspiracy
someone disagrees with you - then it's because they read the daily mail
someone disagrees with you - then they are waging a 'war' (and you're an entirely passive non-combatant)
someone disagrees with you - then they're displaying some sort prejudice.
what you want people to take away from this box of tricks is that disagreement is illegitimate and yours is the only valid position. it's policing debate and denying that disagreement is legitimate and that holding other views is valid.
you claim the analytical skills that let you read what the naming of lego bricks is really promoting, but the skill you seemingly lack is self-awareness. deconstruct your own language. you don't seem to get the symmetry inherent in debate and discussion. it's like a cat looking in a mirror and being unable to interpret the image that it sees. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 14:30 - Feb 10 with 1534 views | Herbivore |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 12:23 - Feb 10 by lowhouseblue |
i don't read the mail.
you claim that the science museum is offering some great insight into the preconceptions that certain language promotes. i have given you a dozen reasons why i think that is not correct. i think the science museum is being juvenile. we disagree. which is fine - debate and discussion is good.
but there is something wider here. you claim you have analytical skills of linguistic deconstruction which allow you to see the way language shapes the perception of reality. but you, and others on here, are apparently completely blind to the way you constantly try to use language to delegitimise debate and disagreement.
what we've had on this thread is the usual range of attempted tricks:
someone disagrees with you - then they're ignorant
someone disagrees with you - then they can't read properly
someone disagrees with you - then they're not thinking for themselves , they're part of a woke conspiracy
someone disagrees with you - then it's because they read the daily mail
someone disagrees with you - then they are waging a 'war' (and you're an entirely passive non-combatant)
someone disagrees with you - then they're displaying some sort prejudice.
what you want people to take away from this box of tricks is that disagreement is illegitimate and yours is the only valid position. it's policing debate and denying that disagreement is legitimate and that holding other views is valid.
you claim the analytical skills that let you read what the naming of lego bricks is really promoting, but the skill you seemingly lack is self-awareness. deconstruct your own language. you don't seem to get the symmetry inherent in debate and discussion. it's like a cat looking in a mirror and being unable to interpret the image that it sees. |
Because of course you've not suggested anyone can't read or used language about the exhibit at the Science Museum that isn't belittling and seeking to shut down the type of debate they are trying to open up. Those in glass houses and all that, maybe try being the change you want to see. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 14:51 - Feb 10 with 1474 views | redrickstuhaart |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 12:23 - Feb 10 by lowhouseblue |
i don't read the mail.
you claim that the science museum is offering some great insight into the preconceptions that certain language promotes. i have given you a dozen reasons why i think that is not correct. i think the science museum is being juvenile. we disagree. which is fine - debate and discussion is good.
but there is something wider here. you claim you have analytical skills of linguistic deconstruction which allow you to see the way language shapes the perception of reality. but you, and others on here, are apparently completely blind to the way you constantly try to use language to delegitimise debate and disagreement.
what we've had on this thread is the usual range of attempted tricks:
someone disagrees with you - then they're ignorant
someone disagrees with you - then they can't read properly
someone disagrees with you - then they're not thinking for themselves , they're part of a woke conspiracy
someone disagrees with you - then it's because they read the daily mail
someone disagrees with you - then they are waging a 'war' (and you're an entirely passive non-combatant)
someone disagrees with you - then they're displaying some sort prejudice.
what you want people to take away from this box of tricks is that disagreement is illegitimate and yours is the only valid position. it's policing debate and denying that disagreement is legitimate and that holding other views is valid.
you claim the analytical skills that let you read what the naming of lego bricks is really promoting, but the skill you seemingly lack is self-awareness. deconstruct your own language. you don't seem to get the symmetry inherent in debate and discussion. it's like a cat looking in a mirror and being unable to interpret the image that it sees. |
I dont claim the science museum is offering some great insight. On the contrary, they make a single minor observation in the context of an exhibition explicitly about lgbtq perspectives. Which you wish to make a big issue of.
Given the disingenuous opening i dont intend to engsge with the lengthy ad hominem that follows. | | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:12 - Feb 10 with 1382 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 14:51 - Feb 10 by redrickstuhaart |
I dont claim the science museum is offering some great insight. On the contrary, they make a single minor observation in the context of an exhibition explicitly about lgbtq perspectives. Which you wish to make a big issue of.
Given the disingenuous opening i dont intend to engsge with the lengthy ad hominem that follows. |
classy get out. well done. properly engaging with other people's views is quite important though. trying to shut down and delegitimise disagreement by throwing pejorative labels about and declaring people who disagree with you to be faulty in someway is a large part of why the world, and social media in particular, is becoming more divided and entrenched. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:32 - Feb 10 with 1332 views | J2BLUE |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:12 - Feb 10 by lowhouseblue |
classy get out. well done. properly engaging with other people's views is quite important though. trying to shut down and delegitimise disagreement by throwing pejorative labels about and declaring people who disagree with you to be faulty in someway is a large part of why the world, and social media in particular, is becoming more divided and entrenched. |
And why there is increasing pushback. |  |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:36 - Feb 10 with 1321 views | StokieBlue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:12 - Feb 10 by lowhouseblue |
classy get out. well done. properly engaging with other people's views is quite important though. trying to shut down and delegitimise disagreement by throwing pejorative labels about and declaring people who disagree with you to be faulty in someway is a large part of why the world, and social media in particular, is becoming more divided and entrenched. |
However, and it's not specifically about this thread, it's important to also not give credence to the falsehood that all opinions are equal and should carry equal weight which I don't think is taken into account in your response.
That is a massive issue which has been compounded by social media allowing many to think they are experts rather than valuing the opinions of those who are actually experts.
It's entirely possible that people who disagree with you are completely wrong and should be called out as such.
SB [Post edited 10 Feb 15:38]
|  | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:50 - Feb 10 with 1270 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:36 - Feb 10 by StokieBlue |
However, and it's not specifically about this thread, it's important to also not give credence to the falsehood that all opinions are equal and should carry equal weight which I don't think is taken into account in your response.
That is a massive issue which has been compounded by social media allowing many to think they are experts rather than valuing the opinions of those who are actually experts.
It's entirely possible that people who disagree with you are completely wrong and should be called out as such.
SB [Post edited 10 Feb 15:38]
|
absolutely, all opinions are not equal and should not carry equal weight. but we find out which are better through honest debate, not by delegitimising debate or the people who disagree with us. prove they are wrong. saying people are ignorant, or can't read, or read the daily mail etc etc etc just because they disagree with someone is just dismissing alternative views and reinforcing a bunkered, shut down group think. people's views need to be shown to be invalid not just labeled in that way. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:55 - Feb 10 with 1251 views | StokieBlue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:50 - Feb 10 by lowhouseblue |
absolutely, all opinions are not equal and should not carry equal weight. but we find out which are better through honest debate, not by delegitimising debate or the people who disagree with us. prove they are wrong. saying people are ignorant, or can't read, or read the daily mail etc etc etc just because they disagree with someone is just dismissing alternative views and reinforcing a bunkered, shut down group think. people's views need to be shown to be invalid not just labeled in that way. |
"prove they are wrong"
Is this possible nowadays? It used to be possible to persuade with evidence but it's not always the case now.
Given the widespread instances of echo-chambers, even when one presents clear, precise and unambiguous evidence to counter a viewpoint there are many times it's dismissed or ignored.
Trump and his administration are the real-world pinnacle of this. They are provably wrong in many cases but it makes no difference to him or those who share his viewpoint.
SB | | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 16:20 - Feb 10 with 1195 views | Herbivore |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:12 - Feb 10 by lowhouseblue |
classy get out. well done. properly engaging with other people's views is quite important though. trying to shut down and delegitimise disagreement by throwing pejorative labels about and declaring people who disagree with you to be faulty in someway is a large part of why the world, and social media in particular, is becoming more divided and entrenched. |
Glass houses. Stones. Pots. Kettles. | |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 16:52 - Feb 10 with 1122 views | Ryorry |
The Science Mus really should do a follow-up survey of people who've taken this tour, which you'd hope would include many who'd classify themselves as being part of the LGBTQ+ communities. I'm guessing people in those groups are no more or less lacking in common-sense than anyone else in the population.
Out of interest I looked at the comment (there was only one) underneath the article (which was published in the Pink News, remember) linked on p1 of this thread. It got 14 upvotes & 2 downies, and said -
"Part of the problem with this story is that the Science Museum's tour is plain wrong. I worked professionally with LEGO in museums, exhibitions and events, for many years, including with the Science Museum, and I have never heard heteronormative language like this from the LEGO company or any fans of any age. No-one calls connecting the bricks "mating" or genders the connections. There are plenty of fields where this language is everyday (plumbing, electronics etc.) but here an ill thought through example has undermined a lot of good work and given the usual suspects a field day".
Reply
14
2 " |  |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 17:10 - Feb 10 with 1081 views | DJR |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 16:52 - Feb 10 by Ryorry |
The Science Mus really should do a follow-up survey of people who've taken this tour, which you'd hope would include many who'd classify themselves as being part of the LGBTQ+ communities. I'm guessing people in those groups are no more or less lacking in common-sense than anyone else in the population.
Out of interest I looked at the comment (there was only one) underneath the article (which was published in the Pink News, remember) linked on p1 of this thread. It got 14 upvotes & 2 downies, and said -
"Part of the problem with this story is that the Science Museum's tour is plain wrong. I worked professionally with LEGO in museums, exhibitions and events, for many years, including with the Science Museum, and I have never heard heteronormative language like this from the LEGO company or any fans of any age. No-one calls connecting the bricks "mating" or genders the connections. There are plenty of fields where this language is everyday (plumbing, electronics etc.) but here an ill thought through example has undermined a lot of good work and given the usual suspects a field day".
Reply
14
2 " |
The self-led trail, Seeing Things Queerly, is an initiative of the Gender and Sexuality Network which is a group of staff and volunteers committed to creating more visibility and inclusion for the LGBTQ+ community in the Science Museum Group's museums and collection.
https://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/author/gender-and-sexuality-network/
https://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/seeing-things-queerly/
It has been up and running since December 2022, but the furore has only blown up in the last few days in relation to one very small aspect of the trail.
EDIT: The right wing media must crawl through things to find this sort of thing (and then twist things) but groups like the Gender and Sexuality Network must not allow themselves to be intimidated in the way that the Government appears to have been according to this from the Guardian.
No 10 claims it does not 'recognise' report manifesto plan to modernise gender recognition law being quietly shelved
At the lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson claimed the government remains committed to modernising gender recognition laws – despite a report claiming that the plans are being quietly shelved.
Asked about the report, the spokesperson said:
The king’s speech sets out out our legislative programme. But we stand by our commitment to modernise gender recognition rules as set out in the manifesto, and we’ll set out our next steps on this work in due course.
In its manifesto Labour said:
We will also modernise, simplify, and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law to a new process. We will remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and acceptance; whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor, enabling access to the healthcare pathway.
In her Times story, Geradline Scott says that, while the manifesto commitment is not being officially dropped, because that would trigger an activist backlash, multiple sources have said they “expect the plans to quietly ‘go away’”. Scott says:
One insider pointed to a poll this week that put Reform above Labour for the first time, and said it would be “catnip” for Nigel Farage’s party if Labour was to push ahead on gender.
Another warned that going ahead would give more ammunition to Elon Musk in his attacks on the government, at a time when President Trump is acting to bolster single-sex spaces.
A third source referenced the fronts on which the government is already defending its position, such as winter fuel payments, the economy and inheritance tax, and said: “Why would we open that particular can of worms for ourselves at this particular moment?”
Asked about these claims, the PM’s spokesperson said:
I don’t recognise that reporting. The manifesto commitment remains … I can’t get ahead of future king’s speeches and legislative sessions. But, on modernising gender recognition rules, the commitment stands as per the manifesto and we’ll set out those next steps in due course. [Post edited 10 Feb 17:25]
| | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 17:18 - Feb 10 with 1045 views | Ryorry |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 17:10 - Feb 10 by DJR |
The self-led trail, Seeing Things Queerly, is an initiative of the Gender and Sexuality Network which is a group of staff and volunteers committed to creating more visibility and inclusion for the LGBTQ+ community in the Science Museum Group's museums and collection.
https://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/author/gender-and-sexuality-network/
https://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/seeing-things-queerly/
It has been up and running since December 2022, but the furore has only blown up in the last few days in relation to one very small aspect of the trail.
EDIT: The right wing media must crawl through things to find this sort of thing (and then twist things) but groups like the Gender and Sexuality Network must not allow themselves to be intimidated in the way that the Government appears to have been according to this from the Guardian.
No 10 claims it does not 'recognise' report manifesto plan to modernise gender recognition law being quietly shelved
At the lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson claimed the government remains committed to modernising gender recognition laws – despite a report claiming that the plans are being quietly shelved.
Asked about the report, the spokesperson said:
The king’s speech sets out out our legislative programme. But we stand by our commitment to modernise gender recognition rules as set out in the manifesto, and we’ll set out our next steps on this work in due course.
In its manifesto Labour said:
We will also modernise, simplify, and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law to a new process. We will remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and acceptance; whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor, enabling access to the healthcare pathway.
In her Times story, Geradline Scott says that, while the manifesto commitment is not being officially dropped, because that would trigger an activist backlash, multiple sources have said they “expect the plans to quietly ‘go away’”. Scott says:
One insider pointed to a poll this week that put Reform above Labour for the first time, and said it would be “catnip” for Nigel Farage’s party if Labour was to push ahead on gender.
Another warned that going ahead would give more ammunition to Elon Musk in his attacks on the government, at a time when President Trump is acting to bolster single-sex spaces.
A third source referenced the fronts on which the government is already defending its position, such as winter fuel payments, the economy and inheritance tax, and said: “Why would we open that particular can of worms for ourselves at this particular moment?”
Asked about these claims, the PM’s spokesperson said:
I don’t recognise that reporting. The manifesto commitment remains … I can’t get ahead of future king’s speeches and legislative sessions. But, on modernising gender recognition rules, the commitment stands as per the manifesto and we’ll set out those next steps in due course. [Post edited 10 Feb 17:25]
|
Thanks for the context, hadn't realised that. Still think it would be useful & interesting for them to conduct a survey. | |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 17:25 - Feb 10 with 1015 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:55 - Feb 10 by StokieBlue |
"prove they are wrong"
Is this possible nowadays? It used to be possible to persuade with evidence but it's not always the case now.
Given the widespread instances of echo-chambers, even when one presents clear, precise and unambiguous evidence to counter a viewpoint there are many times it's dismissed or ignored.
Trump and his administration are the real-world pinnacle of this. They are provably wrong in many cases but it makes no difference to him or those who share his viewpoint.
SB |
ok i've simplified. it has never been possible to settle something absolutely. there are very few certainties. what we rely on instead is that arguments win a weight of support which pushes alternatives into irrelevance. the procedure is same though - good arguments out compete the bad. good arguments garner wide support, bad arguments collapse under their own contradictions. but yes, 'prove they are wrong' is simplistic and deterministic - and few things are ever completely black and white. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 17:28 - Feb 10 with 990 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 16:20 - Feb 10 by Herbivore |
Glass houses. Stones. Pots. Kettles. |
as ever, incisive response which engages with what's been said. mirror, cat, no recognition. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 17:30 - Feb 10 with 967 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 14:30 - Feb 10 by Herbivore |
Because of course you've not suggested anyone can't read or used language about the exhibit at the Science Museum that isn't belittling and seeking to shut down the type of debate they are trying to open up. Those in glass houses and all that, maybe try being the change you want to see. |
but at that stage you genuinely hadn't read what the science museum had said. i didn't doubt your ability to read, the fact was that you hadn't. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 17:37 - Feb 10 with 913 views | SWBlue22 |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:34 - Feb 9 by DJR |
Leaving aside that the ban on paper straws is a drop in the ocean when it comes to Trump's likely action in relation to the environment, I am not sure "I'm with Liz" is a good look these days.
[Post edited 9 Feb 15:38]
|
Question is am I now far right for wanting to reintroduce plastic straws ? | | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 17:40 - Feb 10 with 888 views | Smoresy |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 11:16 - Feb 8 by lowhouseblue |
the telegraph et al are being silly and hysterical and it is a non-story. it's agenda driven and playing to the beliefs of its readers. but the science museum is being equally silly. referring to connectors as male and female is a very traditional BIOLOGICAL analogy. it has absolutely nothing to do with gender or heteronormativity. biologically stuff typically procreates by sticking one thing inside another thing - nothing to do with gender. the science museum is being just as baiting as the telegraph. |
From an anatomical perspective, sexualised Lego bricks would be better understood as male tops, bottoms, trans females and intersex. If I were asked to anthropomorphise Lego bricks though, I'd be more inclined to see the "appendages" as fingers or toes rather than penises: always hard, fixed size, multiple digits, no reproductive qualities to speak of. A vagina would be even lower down my list of orifices, for similar reasons plus sentence one (typical bricks have both studs and tubes).
This procreating, traditional biology talk, it isn't very compatible with Lego bricks is it? Putting Lego together doesn't much resemble mating rituals either, unless you keep changing your mind with the same two bricks I guess. By that stage you should be stepping away from the Lego and having a word with yourself.
The analogy is used because we're accustomed to such heteronormative descriptions, even when they're clunky or don't really fit. I don't worry about this personally but I respect the Science Museum for posing these thoughts at their exhibit. | | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 17:44 - Feb 10 with 851 views | Herbivore |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 17:37 - Feb 10 by SWBlue22 |
Question is am I now far right for wanting to reintroduce plastic straws ? |
Not far right, but you probably need to question your values when the minor inconvenience of not liking cardboard straws is more important to you than the environment. | |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 17:49 - Feb 10 with 818 views | DJR |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 17:37 - Feb 10 by SWBlue22 |
Question is am I now far right for wanting to reintroduce plastic straws ? |
Not enough on its own for me.
As it is, I've never really seen the need for straws, but I do realise that it is difficult to drink a McDonald's milk shake without a straw, and plastic ones may well be better. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
