#Talking points

[bliz-lol]

So! I decided to draw jackbox hosts!

headcanons of hosts names ( blather round,talking points,dodoremi)

Blaze is very talkative

my hosts version(dictionarium, push the button)

[beepsparks]

Hands you a Talking Points hostess interp because yes

[eretzyisrael]

Source

[disembodiedvoicecrossover]

they’re tired of the sandwich store getting their order wrong

[rosebushstuff]

dumb host doodles for you ft. drawful owl

[royalruination]

Today i called out a friend of 10+ years on how she hasn’t been putting in any effort in our friendship and how i’ve always been the one starting conversations and calling and texting and checking in and how that exhausts me. i fr facetimed her to talk about it and then i texted her so she could go back to those words. she told me she needs to do a lot of thinking and she looked sorry about it. if she changes her ways, great. if she doesn’t, i’m gunna have to cut her off completely. we’ll see.

anyway, these are some of the things i wanted her to think about and you can use these talking points if you’re experiencing the same situation as me. of course only do this if you think that friendship/relationship has the potential to last and the person cares about you enough to take it into account:

1) i want you to think about what type of friend/partner you are to me and if that’s serving me in any way

2) i want you to think about what i mean to you and then act accordingly bc i don’t want to feel like i’m forcing you to put in any effort into our friendship/relationship.

[weliveinhell]

Real quick:

If someone asks you "what is the definition of a woman" I think we are all internet savvy enough to know it's a bad faith question with no real answer and the correct response is to make fun of them because they were never actually trying to engage in intellectual honesty.

Especially since they already have an answer in mind and will act like you are stupid if you don't say these six words "someone who's born with a vagina".

However, I feel like the actual answer gets buried in that conversation. So, "Someone who's gender identity is female" is that obvious answer worded with just as many words (6).

It's just there if you feel like giving an actual simple answer to shut them up. If they argue that point, then talk about how the other definition drags in a massive amount of not-women (specifically that), people who will deny, up and down, that they are not women, do not want to be treated like or seen as women.

After that who knows, but another point is that people who wave "middle school biology" around like a banner never bother to learn anything past that and you probably know something about intersex people that breaks the "penis equals man vagina equals woman" sex-imposed gender ideology that fuels right wing reactionist these days.

[alchemisoul]

Once you start labeling something as a right or left wing talking point, you've already lost me. Is it a good or bad idea? That's what I'm looking for.

An idiot, a mad man, a piece of shit is not precluded from having a moment of clarity. An idea's salience isn't determined or dependent upon who said it.

It doesn't matter whether or not an idea is asserted in "good faith", or rather, at the very least, it matters less than whether or not it's a good idea.

To that end, I don't typically trust the ability of humans to accurately gage the "hidden motivations" or "secret beliefs" of those they are in disagreement with.

Is it sound? Is it true? Is it moral? Is it reasonable, logical, thoughtful, and well constructed? That's what I'm looking for when examining ideas.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Andrew Doyle: Culture warriors don’t like debate, it risks taking them away from the approved script

Have you ever noticed that social justice activists all sound the same? And by that I don't mean they've all got plummy upper middle-class accents, although they generally do. I mean that they all seem to speak in the same sort of language. They use terms like "problematic," "toxic masculinity," "white privilege," "decolonization," "cis-heteronormativity" and a million other buzzwords.

And then there are the slogans. Here are some examples. "Trans women are women." "You are erasing our existence." "Your words are violence." "That's my lived experience."

Now, Robert J. Lifton has described these kind of terms as "thought terminating cliches." Those "brief, highly reductive, definitive sounding phrases that become the start and finish of any ideological analysis."

Culture warriors use these cliches to try and put an end to the conversation. The phrases simply don't invite further questions. And when they do, we end up in this weirdly circular discussion. You'll have no doubt seen exchanges like the following on social media:

"Trans women are women." "What is a woman?" "Anyone who identifies as a woman." "But how do I know how to identify as a woman if you can't define woman?" "The definition of a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman."

And this goes round and round and round. All of this brings to mind the 19th century headmaster Andrew Ingram who coined this interesting phrase: "the gostak disdims the doshes."

Now the sentence is syntactically sound. There is a subject, an object and an identifiable verb. As such, we understand that the doshes are able to be distimmed, and that such distimming is carried out by the gostak. Or if you want to see this in dialogue form, it looks like this:

"What is the gostak?" "The gostak is what distims the doshes." "What's distimming?" "Distimming is what the gostak does to the doshes." "Okay, but what are the doshes?" "The doshes are what the gostak distims."

And this is how these ideological discussions often go. They've come up with these impressive sounding words and concepts that can only really be understood in reference to other nebulous words and concepts. And you can see why this might drive everyone insane.

And of course that's the whole point. When people are speaking different languages, there can be no possibility of conversation.

This week, my friend Peter Boghossian, who's an American philosopher and academic, released a video in which he is seen attempting to reason with a group of activist students at Portland State University. He's conducting a thought-experiment in the plaza, and he's asking people to talk through contentious statements such as "defund the police" and "there are only two genders," and it was this statement that upset some of the students.

[.. 🤡 🤡 🤡 ..]

Now remember that this is all because Peter was simply asking people to discuss the statement "there are only two genders." And the video is worth watching in full, it's on Peter's website.

Because what you hear are people who are speaking in slogans as a substitute for thought. As you heard in that brief excerpt, all of them are repeating identical mantras.

And all of this was outlined in 1945 in an essay by George Orwell called "Politics in the English Language." He wrote:

"A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance towards turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church."

And that's what we're hearing from culture warriors. Just the mindless repetition of liturgical cant. One gets the depressing sense of a hive mind, people who have subordinated their individuality to a bigger ideological project. Whereas most young people still go to university to debate, to be challenged and to consider alternative world views, this minority of activists, they go to university in order to conform.

So when you hear these buzzwords, these thought-terminating cliches, it's always worth probing a little more, asking some further questions. Culture warriors don't like debate, because that risks taking them away from the approved script. They might even have to challenge some of their own certainties. But we should never forget that beneath all this jargon, these are intelligent human beings who have simply forgotten what it feels like to think for themselves.

==

Unsurprisingly, there are parallels with the more traditional religions.

“God is love.” “You send yourself to hell.” “Something can’t come from nothing.” “You just hate god.” “It’s a metaphor.” “You can’t know love without god.” “You can’t be good without god.” “Someone obviously hurt you.” “I’ll pray for you.” “Well, I have faith.”

Islam has its own.

“There are no scientific inaccuracy in quran.” “There are no contradiction in quran.” “Nowhere in quran does it say that.” “That’s a mistranslation.” “That’s the wrong interpretation.” “Girls matured faster back then.” “You have to read it in Arabic.” “That’s an unreliable hadith.” “Yet you say nothing about when Christians did it 300 years ago.”

As with the traditionally religious, I’m not convinced the woke religionists actually understand their own doctrine. For example, I don’t think they know that Judith Butler says there’s no such thing as an inherent or stable “gender identity.” All they know is the noises to produce from their larynx to demonstrate their piety and affiliation with The Right Side of History™.

Like the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, there’s a mystical element to social constructivist ideology. Chanting the words will turn the wafer into the substance of the body of Christ; a miracle that defies material reality. Chanting the slogans will make them true; society will be transformed in conformance with “lived experience” and in defiance of objective reality.

[bobcatbaker]

So I played Jackbox for the first time

[disembodiedvoicecrossover]

finally finished a drawing of my new champ’d up host interp

extra quizkiller drawing below the cut. cw for blood stains

i feel like i added too many blood stains

[fbpanimations]

(full page under the cut)

[m0netsberm]

The weather shifts are just WOW!! It went from sunny, to raining, back to sunny, followed by snow in the span of like 5min.

[alarrytale]

Hi Marte, do you think the boys used to be given talking points to stick to in interviews? Sometimes when watching old interviews it seems like they say things and then look off screen or they make fun of things they were told to say. For example when Harry and Niall were saying sarcastically “We’re really funny, the laughs we have, pranks…” I just get a feeling maybe they were told to talk about that? Also Harry has said variations of “The great thing about music is it speaks for yourself and you don’t have to explain what a song’s about” multiple times.

Hi, anon!

Yes, they were all given talking points in interviews. In 1d it was usually Liam who was given the task. Sometimes they were given broad topics to mention and other times they were almost given word for word what they were supposed to say. Sometimes they were prompted by the interviewer who asked them leading questions. Especially when it came to talking points the boys didn’t really want to talk about at all. Looking at you Ben.

Now that they've gone solo they're giving less interviews. The ones they do it's almost just talking points. Louis' FITF promo was interesting the first few interviews before i noticed he said the exact same things, with the same wording being used, in every interview. It's so rehearsed and goes to show how fake and carefully curated his image really is.