I literally lolled when I heard this on the radio. Short story shorter, Seth Rogan and James Franco are hired by the Cia or something to assassinate Kim Jong un or whoever, in a movie. And Kim (Dennis Rodmans best friend) is pissed and is threatening war with the US if we don't cancel the terrorism supporting movie.

Iirc saddam didn't have an issue with the many many movies that depicted his death. So I think kink jin ooh needs to buy a fleshlight.

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28014069

F*ck that.

This planet does not deserve to be bombed, period.

I think we live in a comedy movie. North Korea has two Americans captive and they want to bomb us over a movie?

What's the deal with North Korea. I mean that place is literally nuts. I feel for the enslaved inhabitants there.

But they didn't have a problem with this??? Oh, evil people have nooooo sense of humor.

It's a complicated issue and it's quite easy to take recent developments out of context.

You have to remember that North Korea is a rogue state that was created after the US failed attempt to steal the entire peninsula when they invaded. For the most part the US has created this rogue state and the current situation. After having thousands of their countrymen murdered by US troops it quite easy to understand the contempt shown towards Americans.

Since the war the North Koreans have basically had the foot of the US planted on their throats and kept poor by the puppet masters of the United Nations (Rothschilds) through sanctions and limited access to free markets. The US has reneged on countless deals and has constantly lifted the bar of compliance to where it's just out of reach.

Mix that in with a psychopathic dictator with an enormous chip on his shoulder (just like his dad) and you have the perfect recipe for disaster.

The South Koreans aren't too keen either. But that's American foreign policy for you.

I've always thought in regard to Korea that it's a situation that's going to have to boil over one day. That's two of the world's largest armies who have been standing each other off for over half a century - something's got to give eventually.

I think it'll be a war fought when the US is distracted with another, bigger war. I've been looking at potential flash points for a while now as I feel there are various wars brewing, and all they need is one big war to trigger the rest.

Flash points I've thought of are:

India vs China - Both are squabbling over water sources which both countries have a claim to and need in the future to support their massive populations. While I see this as a war a little bit into the future, a big event could mean the trigger getting pulled earlier.

Russia vs Eastern Europe - There's been much speculation that the moves in the Ukraine could underlie a Russian strategy to reassert itself over former USSR areas. While there's a few complications in doing so (some of the areas are NATO protected), a bigger war elsewhere could give Russia the confidence to move.

China vs Japan - Old hatreds and renewed squabbles could drag both to war, especially if China got a hint of weakness in the US' capability to deploy forces to Japan.

China vs countries in South China Sea - Since China extended its water territories without permission from anyone, the move has massively antagonised other countries in the area.

Israel vs Islamic countries - A long running feud, and one that is only kept in check by Israel's powerful western supporters.

Korean peninsula - As discussed already.


What all these flashpoints have in common is that they are all kept in check by the size and strength of the US military, and the potential of it coming in on the side of the West and western backed countries. In a couple of cases, NATO might also get involved, which would mean a combined strike from the countries who brought you the last two world wars all working together.

What you would need for any for them to flare up is a war big enough for the US to get distracted and not be able to deploy across the world stage effectively. This is where the last flashpoint, the middle east in general, comes in.

What's going on in the Middle East now has the potential to flare up to something much, much bigger. It's basically Catholics vs Protestants: Islamic Edition. It's already engulfed two countries, and if it spreads across the Middle East and turns the entire region into one massive war zone, you can pretty much guarantee a US deployment to protect energy assets in the region.

If that happens and it gets massive enough (look for a Sunni uprising in Saudi Arabia to be that point), then it might be enough to flare up all these other locations.

The good news for Americans is that they could legitimately beat off the rest of the world if they all attacked the US, so no war will come to the American continent - short of nukes. The same applies to Europe. I think about a couple of millenniums of fighting each other, we've pretty much figured out where that goes. As for the UK itself, I think it might be one of the hardest locations on Earth to stage an assault, so us Brits will be far removed from any ground conflict.

How about you pull your sexism back up and in where it belongs. Why does the Attitude apply to everyone but women here?

Seriously, I do have a sense of humor but I would have called you or anyone on this type of remark if it were disrespectful and ignorant towards an entire race or religion of people.

I really worry about that one. If had to bet, I would say that water is probably going to spark the next World War, or at least the next nuclear exchange, and it will probably be between India and China. As Climate Change raises the temperature in the Himalayas, ancient rivers are going to start drying up, leading to a squabble over who controls the Tibetan plateau, and consequently, the remaining water. China has already started talking about diverting water in it's territory that ultimately flows into India, and the Indian government isn't happy about it.

China thinks they own it, but if India got desperate, you could be looking at an unwinnable war in some of the most difficult, remote terrain on Earth. There's no way that's ending well, for anyone. Especially the poor Tibetans

I understand the offense and I apologize. Although it wasn't an attack on females in any way and I hope you can take a step back and see it for what it was. I'm not sexist by any means so I would appreciate refraining from name calling.

Pandora I love you but please don't be offended by such things coming from me. I've been told to pull mine out on occasion by females I know.

Besides this is the fun and humor section come on... Pretty please.

I'm a man and when I read that last statement I completely missed any sexist implications, I interpreted it more like "he should take a chill pill"

After Pandora pointed it out, I can see she has a valid point. The statement could well be taken as sexist or derogatory but I see it as more of a poor choice of words than outright sexism.

I suppose it's a reflection of the sexist world we live in, we (men) are sexist bastards without even realising sometimes, even if it's not intended as such.

I don"t see how Anrchy"s statement is sexist. It is a fact that women become more emotional at different times of the month due to fluctuations in estrogen.



If Anrchy had said that Kim Jong Un had spat his dummy, would it have been an age-ist comment?

no war is going to happen ,

sexism will be obsolete

i am going to be crowned the emperor of the world

my armies of birds is going to rain poop on everyone

this is the truth

Implicit, explicit, intentional, unintentional, systemic, or whatever other forms of sexism, racism, or otherwise derogatory attitudes don't have a place here.

I understand that we are all liable to misspeak or make careless or thoughtless remarks, at times. I'm certainly not claiming to be immune to this.

When we do make such remarks, it behooves us to do our best to understand why they are offensive and to make amends, so that when we see others make similar statements in the future, we can do our best to help educate them as to why their statements are problematic.

Here are some points I'd like to make after reading the past series of comments:

--Telling someone not to be upset when either a carelessly or an intentionally sexist remark is made is problematic. In fact, telling someone what to feel at any time in response to anything is likely inappropriate and presumptuous.

--Placing greater importance on your own social comfort (i.e. not being called out as making a sexist remark) rather than on the felt experience of upset/distress/non-safety of the person affected by your comment presents a privileged position, reacting defensively, and prevents productive discourse about the problem being cited by a community member.

--Using someone's biology as the punchline to a joke or as a derogation is problematic; the mechanism of the comment that started all of this was to disparage Kim Jong Un by comparing him to a woman. Whether this was an implicit or explicit intention is not really the point. The comment was made and here we are...and let's acknowledge that this comment was hurtful.

--Trotting out the old, patriarchal argument that female biology impairs the cognitive or emotional decision making of female-bodied people is disrespectful, to say the least. All bodies produce both estrogen and testosterone. Neither of those hormones in their normal range negatively affect behavior or cognitive ability. Female bodies and their healthy functions have been turned against their owners as tools of oppression for hundreds (if not thousands) of years--they are confined during childbirth, ostracized during and after menstruation, harassed for breastfeeding their children in public, and a myriad of other oppressive attitudes surround female bodies. Dialogue that reinforces the "inferiority" of female bodies is unacceptable and sexist, and should be called out as such.

Well said, Snozz. I'm sorry Pandora got offended, but I think this is an excellent conversation to (finally) be having on The Nexus.

Snozz I would like to start by replying to your post.

I was not simply telling Pandora to not be upset, rather I was eluding to the fact it was not meant in the way it was received to hopefully down play the assumed expression.

I was also not placing any importance on my own social comfort. I was simply explaining my own social situation to hopefully explain my view of it, not to define it, so that my position could be better understood.

If you read my post you will see that I acknowledged the possibility that my comment could be be hurtful. I also didnt view the comment as depicting any shortcomings, as I don't believe a woman's hormones being out of balance being such. I was also not comparing him to a woman. I was comparing his reaction to a hormonal/chemical imbalance (in my head at the time) I understand trust me, that sounds stupid but if someone says something with a certain intent I don't think another's interpretation should be the 100% deciding factor.

I see this as more of a stereotypical joke rather than one of actual biology. Men have the same issues with hormonal imbalance as well as masculine irregularities. I also don't see why it's logical to bring up past female oppression as an example why it's not OK to say certain things. I also don't want to get into a convo about oppression as I could argue that topic as well as in other ways I am being oppressed as well as you and this guy and that girl ect. Create a thread about it if it's needed.

I'm sorry if it wasn't fully understood that I am sorry for the comment I made to cause offense. I really am sorry. My reply earlier was in the thought that I had a close enough relationship with Pandora that my reply would be sufficient. My attempt to lighten up things by claiming being me also being told "insert previous joke" apparently failed.

Like I said it was more based on a well known stereotype (about males) that may or may not be true. My own understanding from life experience is that this joke is an acceptable one, but I understand this forum has all walks of life and that should have been taken into account more.

I do want to say this however. Any joke that refers to someone being weak or dumb or this or that has potential to offend someone if they allow it. I simply do not understand the logic in being offended by such trivial things. I would never joke about something traumatizing (on purpose) if someone had experienced such experience. I'm also not trying to come off insensitive about my joke but this kind of thing really doesn't make a lot of sense.

If I had said this instead... Kim Jong is crying over spilt milk. That could be taken in offense because it jokes about the over sensitivity of children. If I had said he needs to take a chill pill that could offend people on ssri's.

When do we simply stop being offended by things that are not directly aimed at you?

Men have menstrual cycles as well. Half of the joke was actually based on that idea, even though we don't have menstrual flow.

lol at this thread

Second that.

Just my two cents. I don't believe Anrchy was attempting to be offensive at all there, unless the reader was Kim Jong Un. It was just a throwaway comment, and a fairly common figure of speech. There's an argument that we should actively try and make our speech less offensive. For example, using the term 'gay' in a derogatory manner was commonplace when I was at school. These days, it is heavily frowned upon. Such is life when you have a constantly evolving language.

That said, some slack needs to be given in terms of context, especially when it comes to comedy. Perhaps I've just been blessed with a particularly thick skin, but I generally only draw a line when someone is being intentionally vindictive.

I do think it's quite relevant that in a thread about flashpoints that could trigger a massive war that a small throwaway comment taken the wrong way can cause a flare up here. Especailly when Kim Yong Un's inability to take a joke could lead his whole country to war was the starting point of this conversation. There's plenty to be said for people choosing the right language in the first place, but there also needs to be serious considerations for how the recipient responds to it if we are ever going to come to a more universal understanding of each other.



Yeah, apparently the plan involves diverting a full third of the Ganges. Given how many hundreds of millions depend on that river to live, that's basically an open declaration of war right there. It'd also be a war fought over the Himalayas - I can't think of a worse battleground. That's going to be bloody.

anrchy, first of all, my post was not directed solely at you. Second of all, your subsequent post presents more issues that bear examination.


Can you understand how, from an outside perspective, "hoping to downplay" the effects of your comments can be equated with telling someone how to react?


At the point where someone has expressed that they find your words hurtful or insulting, it would seem to me to make more sense to attempt to understand why they are hurt or offended, rather than to explain why your words are not hurtful/offensive, from your point of view.


Menstruation ≠ "a woman's hormones being out of balance." It is a normal, healthy part of being a female-bodied person. In fact, it indicates that your hormones are at the correct levels.


As I said earlier, regardless of our initial intentions, when we make remarks that others inform us they find hurtful or offensive, it behooves us to do our best to understand why they are hurtful/offensive and to make amends.


See the above comments re: hormonal imbalance. Additionally, men do not have "the same" issues when it comes to systemic/institutional oppression.


Because your comment was understood to encompass elements that have historically been used to engage in the oppression of female-bodied people. The example at hand is tied to past (and present) examples of female oppression.


I address the issues where they arise, as I have done since my earliest days on this forum. I do not believe in sectioning of thought in ways that others find convenient. When real world examples present themselves as potential learning moments or discussion points, those are the best points at which to engage, imo. Men are affected by patriarchy as well as women, but the effects, mechanisms of action, and institutions at play are qualitatively different. And let's be clear, these effects on men are the byproducts of patriarchy, not the effects of institutionalized misandry.


Except that, I too found the comment off-puting. Surely you are not insinuating that only a female-bodied person can find the statement in poor taste. In my opinion, your attempt to "lighten things up" failed to address the issue(s) that pandora raised. I know that, personally, when I tell someone that I am hurt/offended, the response I am hoping for is certainly not one of lightening the mood.


I don't understand how a joke about a product intended for use by female-bodied people is based on a "well known stereotype (about males)." My own understanding from life experience is that this joke is a completely unacceptable one. This brings us back to my point about working to understand how and why our words can be hurtful and/or offensive.


This is actually a good encapsulation of some of the issues with the incident at hand. In the above statement, you essentially equate your joke about tampons (the emasculation of Kim Jong Un) with "Any joke that refers to someone being weak or dumb or this or that." In doing so, you highlight a major problem. It is offensive and oppressive to equate being a female-bodied person with being weak or dumb (this is not a trivial thing). It is not the responsibility of those offended by your remarks to avoid the offense the remakrs have caused. Rather, as stated in the attitude, "Watch your language. Communication is comprised of not only the explicit but also the implicit messages, which are transmitted through choice of words and general tone of speech."

I'm not trying to cause any drama with my words here. In fact, I think this is a good moment for us to take stock of the things we say and the way they effect others. I would ask that before anyone reacts to the words I have posted, that they take some time to sit with them and contemplate their deeper implications. I think there is actually some material here that is very much related to messages I have received from psychedelics (but obviously, I can't speak for anyone else).

I had a big long stupid reply, and I decided to delete it. Wanna know why?

Who cares?

This whole "I am offended" thing offends me, seriously. If it were in a more negative/intentive context I could see the need for such an uproar this has caused but it was in a joking manner and could have been dealt with differently. The fact I was using it in a joke should have implied that I would be more receptive than someone who were, say, using it to actually hurt someones feelings. It was a joke, IMO, people need to lighten up. Why take life so seriously? I agree, if the same text were used in an angriliy fashion take him to the gallows!

Pyschedelics have showed me that laughter is great, seeing the irony in things is even greater, and being understanding rather than pointing the finger and saying "you there, i dont like what you are saying, I AM OFFENDED!" is much more important and productive in helping mankind along its path.

Either way I think pandoras comment should have canceled the whole thing out. IMO you opinion is negated when you are doing exactly what you are upset about.



How does the attitude not apply to those being offended? Put MY sexism up and in where exactly? Thats kind of messed up.



Why does one need to call someone out on something, when a simple explanation would suffice? This entire reply comes off rude and offensive. If you don't like what I said ask nicely for me to reword it. If you have a sense of humor why was it not used?


Just to be clear I changed my comment, and it means exactly the same thing as my previous comment. Lettin off a little steam with a little wacky wacky seems to work well though. Tampons apparently do nothing for males.