Originally posted by Shadowcon66:

Originally posted by Holly Jollewin:

(as I've seen in Forum Filth).

jesus fuck lewin, what did I ask for?

Originally posted by Shadowcon66:

Instead of derailing this into something being about Forum Filth.

I'll censor my passing comment.

Originally posted by Panic:

"'I have a dream.' That one day every person in this nation will control their own destiny. A land of the truly free, dammit. A nation of action, not words, ruled by strength, not committee! Where the law changes to suit the individual, not the other way around. Where power and justice are back where they belong: in the hands of the people! Where every man is free to think - to act - for himself! Fuck all these limp-dick lawyers and chickenshit bureaucrats. Fuck this 24-hour Internet spew of trivia and celebrity bullshit! Fuck American pride! Fuck the media! FUCK ALL OF IT! America is diseased. Rotten to the core. There's no saving it - we need to pull it out by the roots. Wipe the slate clean. BURN IT DOWN! And from the ashes, a new America will be born. Evolved, but untamed! The weak will be purged and the strongest will thrive - free to live as they see fit, they'll make America great again! ...In my new America, people will die and kill for what they BELIEVE! Not for money. not for oil! Not for what they're told is right. Every man will be free to fight his own wars!"

makin' the mother of all omelettes

Originally posted by Geech:

Originally posted by Holly Jollewin:

According to one of UPenn's professors (and one of the staff that held a meeting an agreed to officially replace the painting and proposed the idea before the students ever got to it):

"[N]o serious English department doesn’t teach Shakespeare, but neither do any serious English departments in 2016 take their mission as exclusively oriented to a single writer or even a few classic writers. Our students are expected to know the classics and so much more."

This isn't just identity politics. It's about talent, writing style, and contributions to history. There was never a mention in the article, or by the students, that the decision was made solely because there weren't enough black people on the wall, nor were there any big stinks (like at Claremont McKenna) over there being too many white people on the wall.

This seems to be an attempt to reflect the many writing styles, historical contributions, and uses of writing that exist in the world, and have existed and been overlooked in the past. As a writer, I can completely agree with that sentiment. Sure, it's important to study Shakespeare. But I have discovered there are an abundance of writers in this world's history that have, yes, been overlooked - black and white and every color in between. Making a public statement about the new diverse selection of authors students study is a fine thing.

"This isn't just identity politics. It's about talent, writing style, and contributions to history."

Lolno, the STUDENTS put that shit up and the PROFESSOR is justifying it, the STUDENTS are being retarded while the PROFESSOR is acting like the parent of a child with down syndrome.

.
That's a steaming hot pile of assumption right there, determined by your own beliefs and automatic opinions that you've developed (as I've seen in ).

I think it's at this point where neither party is going to win this argument. It will only become a dick-measuring contest, and any helpful information either party offers will be lost amidst a swirling vortex of salt.

happy thoughts

much ado about nothing amirite

Originally posted by Geech:

Originally posted by Holly Jollewin:

Vindicated by history. Audrey Lorde, after a few preliminary reads from her, seems to be a very influential individual, fluent in prose and a major part of the civil rights movements that occurred in the 1900s.

I think it's hasty to rule out such an individual as "unimportant" simply because society has not elevated her to the level of Shakespeare.

Addressing the replacement, the memory of Shakespeare isn't under danger. Just because a picture frame of him got taken down doesn't mean that everyone on Earth will automatically forget Shakespeare's contributions to the stage, or dismiss him as "another white cis male".

However, putting Audrey Lorde's portrait up there, especially since she seems to be a person deserving of some praise, would do wonders for the stories and ideals she sought to present to greater society. We can't say, with all certainty, that every forgotten person in history DESERVES to be forgotten.

They didn't put Audrey Lorde's picture up for the reasoning of honoring her contributions to history though.

They put it up for identity politics.

According to one of UPenn's professors (and one of the staff that held a meeting an agreed to officially replace the painting and proposed the idea before the students ever got to it):

"[N]o serious English department doesn’t teach Shakespeare, but neither do any serious English departments in 2016 take their mission as exclusively oriented to a single writer or even a few classic writers. Our students are expected to know the classics and so much more."

This isn't just identity politics. It's about talent, writing style, and contributions to history. There was never a mention in the article, or by the students, that the decision was made solely because there weren't enough black people on the wall, nor were there any big stinks (like at Claremont McKenna) over there being too many white people on the wall.

This seems to be an attempt to reflect the many writing styles, historical contributions, and uses of writing that exist in the world, and have existed and been overlooked in the past. As a writer, I can completely agree with that sentiment. Sure, it's important to study Shakespeare. But I have discovered there are an abundance of writers in this world's history that have, yes, been overlooked - black and white and every color in between. Making a public statement about the new diverse selection of authors students study is a fine thing.

Originally posted by Shadowcon66:

Originally posted by Holly Jollewin:

It's fine.

Everyone knows who Shakespeare is. I don't know who the hell Lorde is. Seems to balance out.

no one knows who Lorde is, because nobody cared about her.
there was no reason to replace Shakespeare with Audre Lorde.
except for that all they could come up with, was "muh diversity".
I mean hey, why don't we go ahead and replace the hallmark icon of a well-reknowned individual and replace them with someone who is completely irrelevant and totally unimportant?

Vindicated by history. Audrey Lorde, after a few preliminary reads from her, seems to be a very influential individual, fluent in prose and a major part of the civil rights movements that occurred in the 1900s.

I think it's hasty to rule out such an individual as "unimportant" simply because society has not elevated her to the level of Shakespeare.

Addressing the replacement, the memory of Shakespeare isn't under danger. Just because a picture frame of him got taken down doesn't mean that everyone on Earth will automatically forget Shakespeare's contributions to the stage, or dismiss him as "another white cis male".

However, putting Audrey Lorde's portrait up there, especially since she seems to be a person deserving of some praise, would do wonders for the stories and ideals she sought to present to greater society. We can't say, with all certainty, that every forgotten person in history DESERVES to be forgotten.

It's fine.

Everyone knows who Shakespeare is. I don't know who the hell Lorde is. Seems to balance out.

Keep on dreaming

gg