Emma Watson's Un Speech

[CrossCuT]

Equality is propaganda now? 

 

There is so much backlash to feminism...everything Emma said nearly predicts peoples responses to her speech. Even the woman who wrote that response could benefit by the ideals of feminism even if she doesnt think she does. A lot of her points were pretty inconsequential to the topic as a whole though; she made a lot of assumptions about Emma and even went so far as to pull the "Youre a celebrity = your life is wonderful" card...which is pretty ignorant. 

[veritasluxmea]

RE: superblue

 

Don't feed the trolls.  

 

Edited September 25, 2014 by veritasluxmea

[Ice_nine]

I asked myself what an "un-speech" was.

 

good job internet. You've bested me once again.

[blazeingstar]

I wasn't really impressed.  I made in halfway through before I got board.  Mostly beucase she's only getting heard becuase she IS a clebrety.  Most of what she said, except for the parts that hinted at what could be construde as gay rights or against the church higherarchy, are things that Catholics have been saying since Humaniae Vitae.   Everyone, men and women, need equal pay and equil rights.  Men and women need not be completely, overtly sexualized. Women should excercize and pursue sports if they want and Men should persue arts....etc.

 

I guess my blahness dosn't come from her saying it, but from people lauding her for saying it when it's all been said before.

[CrossCuT]

I like how you criticize what you perceived as gay support undertones yet in the same breath you claim every man and woman deserve equal rights. 

 

Also

 

See what I did there?

[blazeingstar]

I like how you criticize what you perceived as gay support undertones yet in the same breath you claim every man and woman deserve equal rights. 

 

Also

 

 

See what I did there?

 

Whatever on the spelling.  Go pick on someone who actually cares.

 

As far as support.  I'm with the Catholic church on it's stance for marriage.  Sorry, you're on a Catholic board, you're the one who needs to comply.

 

Men and woman deserve equil rights. I don't believe they deserve the right to marry the same gender as secular marriage is really only for legal purposes.  What would be fair is that every man and woman can choose to share their fininancial and health benefits with whomever they choose, not just a domestic partner.  If a single, 60 woman is earning money, she cannot add her 80 aunt and if the 60yo woman died, despite years of caring for her, the 80yo could not recieve her SS, only private insurace.  I find that disturbing, and I think that "gay" marriage has forever made fixing this impossible.   I do not think "marriage" is the way for people to achieve this equailty....no matter the gender.  Quite frankly, it's none of the government's business who decides to commit to living under the same roof.  Marriage should be left as a soley "religious" institution (all religions, including any flying spagetti monster,etc).

[superblue]

If you don't want negative critisim to a question that asks what did you think, then dont ask, what did you think, if you want to praise a person for a speech, then label it just that, that way when negative critisim comes on a topic you want to only speak positively of you will have a leg to stand on when ya start getting befuddled or aggrivated.

 

This is easily turning into a debate, which this should probably be moved too;  i dont need to watch a negative form of propaganda aimed at warping societies mind set on the view of " feminisim " nor do i need a history lesson on what " feminisim " is; to know that i do not need to fully listen or watch what she has to say, it is even sadder that the UN actually took the time to listen to what hollywood had to say.

 

Blaz is already hitting on the real undertones of her speech, so while those who are eager to give emma a round of applause; there are more of us who already know what is going on before it even happens.  A rather sly attempt is all it is, get a pretty young face  who looks meek enough, and she starts spouting her views for peace and koombaya  and her other hippie,politico,propaganda bs,and everyone is stunned at her eloquent voice and poise with out really digesting and disecting what she is saying.

 

an nice try semper catholic on the rebuttle, an for the other tool calling me a troll, just because i dont drink the same kool aid you two do there is no need to hate me for it or flash your stupidity either.

[superblue]

In public speaking we teach that there are multiple purposes for delivering a persuasive speech, and one of them is to reinforce an audience's beliefs about a subject. So "preaching to the choir" has a purpose, and if the cause is good (which you obviously contest), it is a worthy endeavor even if it fails in its goal of reinforcement.

 

As for whether it's propaganda: Every message is propaganda if you set the bar low enough. By your standard, I should think your own comment is propaganda.

 

I do know what a persuasive speech is, but then tell me this, when one fails at persuading someone from that speech, is the one who is thusly not persuaded then wrong for not agreeing with the writers position or view ?

 

The bar does not need any level in regards to propaganda, as it is (

information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view: )   The major definition being Biased and misleading in nature, which is a negative undertone to it, the word it self does not mean or lump in the word " message " which has it's own deffinition.

 

Now if someone wants to believe propaganda that is on them, not me, i chose not to believe it, and i am not going to try and " write a persuasive essay " or debate anyone here on why they shouldn't believe it.

 

And i do contest preaching to the choir,  it would be like going to a university and gathering up mathemeticians to thusly explain the basics of math and how the Romans came up with their numeric system.  If you want to reinforce a message, do it in an original way that makes someone think. Not just regurgitate what one has heard from others time and time again.

 

 

so if i offended anyone, that is your problem for being butt hurt.  Next time don't ask for peoples opinions, just ask for everyone to agree.

[Gabriela]

 

I do know what a persuasive speech is, but then tell me this, when one fails at persuading someone from that speech, is the one who is thusly not persuaded then wrong for not agreeing with the writers position or view ?

 

I CAN"T UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS IS ASKING ME.

 

The bar does not need any level in regards to propaganda, as it is (

information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view: )   The major definition being Biased and misleading in nature, which is a negative undertone to it, the word it self does not mean or lump in the word " message " which has it's own deffinition.

 

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE, EITHER.

 

Now if someone wants to believe propaganda that is on them, not me, i chose not to believe it, and i am not going to try and " write a persuasive essay " or debate anyone here on why they shouldn't believe it.

 

BUT YOU ARE DEBATING. (IN FACT, WHY IS THIS THREAD IN OPEN MIC? I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WHY IT WAS STARTED HERE, BUT NOW...)

 

And i do contest preaching to the choir,  it would be like going to a university and gathering up mathemeticians to thusly explain the basics of math and how the Romans came up with their numeric system.  If you want to reinforce a message, do it in an original way that makes someone think. Not just regurgitate what one has heard from others time and time again.

 

MATHEMATICIANS DO NOT NEED TO HAVE SUCH THINGS EXPLAINED TO THEM. BUT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AN INFORMATIVE SPEECH, NOT A PERSUASIVE ONE. BELIEFS AND ATTITUDES ARE MUCH MORE PRONE TO CHANGE THAN KNOWLEDGE, WHICH IS WHY PERSUASIVE SPEECHES OFTEN REAFFIRM THE FORMER. BUT INFORMATIVE SPEECHES DO NOT COMMONLY "REAFFIRM" THE LATTER, AS THAT IS TYPICALLY PERCEIVED BY THE AUDIENCE AS CONDESCENDING. THERE IS, THEREFORE, A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN WHAT YOU AND I DESCRIBE. THE TWO ARE NOT IN FACT COMPARABLE, AS YOU SEEM TO ASSERT BY YOUR EXAMPLE.

 

I AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT ONE OUGHT BE ORIGINAL IN REINFORCING ANY MESSAGE. I DO THINK THAT EMMA WATSON WAS ORIGINAL, THOUGH. MOSTLY, SHE USED HER OWN EXPERIENCES TO SUPPORT HER POINTS, NOT JUST A BUNCH OF STUFF SHE'D HEARD ELSEWHERE. (ALTHOUGH I'LL AGREE THAT THE USE OF CLICHES IN THE CONCLUSION WAS TRITE AND DETRACTED FROM THE POWER OF HER CLOSING.)

 

so if i offended anyone, that is your problem for being butt hurt.  Next time don't ask for peoples opinions, just ask for everyone to agree.

 

I AM NOT BUTT HURT. AND I DID NOT ASK FOR ANYONE'S OPINION.

 

Hey Boss! What happened to that function we used to have that let you exit a quote when you clicked "enter" twice? I used to be able to break up quotes that way to respond to different portions individually.

[Credo in Deum]

http://www.upworthy.com/her-voice-might-tremble-but-emma-watsons-message-is-strong-and-clear

 

What did you think of her speech?

meh

[superblue]

Hey Boss! What happened to that function we used to have that let you exit a quote when you clicked "enter" twice? I used to be able to break up quotes that way to respond to different portions individually.

good grief captain looney toon, the only time i was directing anything at you was the one where i specificly quoted you, not the general message above it that was directed as a general though and reply to specific others who know who they are.

 

and if you can't figure out what i am asking and what i am saying in my reply to you, im sorry, i don't know how else to rephrase it.

 

and i wasnt speeking inregards to an informative speech, i was using if anything a poor analogy for preaching to the choir.

 

 

exactly how does one know when an trained actor or actress is not acting ?  It was nothing but a show piece, either to make herself look all high n mighty or to pass of more bs that she thinks is the truth.

 

 

but anyhow i hope at least ya know i wasnt aiming the previous reply directly at you, only the one that is directly quoted for you.

 

anybeans peace.

[Gabriela]

good grief captain looney toon, the only time i was directing anything at you was the one where i specificly quoted you, not the general message above it that was directed as a general though and reply to specific others who know who they are.

 

and if you can't figure out what i am asking and what i am saying in my reply to you, im sorry, i don't know how else to rephrase it.

 

and i wasnt speeking inregards to an informative speech, i was using if anything a poor analogy for preaching to the choir.

 

 

exactly how does one know when an trained actor or actress is not acting ?  It was nothing but a show piece, either to make herself look all high n mighty or to pass of more bs that she thinks is the truth.

 

 

but anyhow i hope at least ya know i wasnt aiming the previous reply directly at you, only the one that is directly quoted for you.

 

anybeans peace.

 

Considering all the first four paragraphs of your five-paragraph post were in direct response to something I had written—about either persuasive speaking, or propaganda, or preaching to the choir—I think it unfair that you expect me to realize that the last paragraph was not for me. Thank you, though, for clarifying. In future, you might want to format your posts so:

 

TO [SPECIFIC PERSON]:

 

TO EVERYONE ELSE:

 

...so as to be clear the first time.

 

Both your calling me "captain looney toon" and your assumption of Emma Watson's motives are uncharitable. You can't know why she did what she did, so why assume the worst?

 

Peace also to you.

[PhuturePriest]

If you don't want negative critisim to a question that asks what did you think, then dont ask, what did you think, if you want to praise a person for a speech, then label it just that, that way when negative critisim comes on a topic you want to only speak positively of you will have a leg to stand on when ya start getting befuddled or aggrivated.

 

This is easily turning into a debate, which this should probably be moved too;  i dont need to watch a negative form of propaganda aimed at warping societies mind set on the view of " feminisim " nor do i need a history lesson on what " feminisim " is; to know that i do not need to fully listen or watch what she has to say, it is even sadder that the UN actually took the time to listen to what hollywood had to say.

 

Blaz is already hitting on the real undertones of her speech, so while those who are eager to give emma a round of applause; there are more of us who already know what is going on before it even happens.  A rather sly attempt is all it is, get a pretty young face  who looks meek enough, and she starts spouting her views for peace and koombaya  and her other hippie,politico,propaganda bs,and everyone is stunned at her eloquent voice and poise with out really digesting and disecting what she is saying.

 

an nice try semper catholic on the rebuttle, an for the other tool calling me a troll, just because i dont drink the same kool aid you two do there is no need to hate me for it or flash your stupidity either.

 

I never said you weren't allowed to post. Just as you're allowed to post your opinion, I'm allowed to inform you of how stupid it is.

[PhuturePriest]

good grief captain looney toon, the only time i was directing anything at you was the one where i specificly quoted you, not the general message above it that was directed as a general though and reply to specific others who know who they are.

 

You are allowed to post your stupid opinions, but you are not allowed to be uncharitable to people like that. Get charitable or get off.

[veritasluxmea]

Most of what she said, except for the parts that hinted at what could be construde as gay rights or against the church higherarchy, are things that Catholics have been saying since Humaniae Vitae.   Everyone, men and women, need equal pay and equil rights.  Men and women need not be completely, overtly sexualized. Women should excercize and pursue sports if they want and Men should persue arts....etc.

 

I guess my blahness dosn't come from her saying it, but from people lauding her for saying it when it's all been said before.

Yeah, pretty much. 

 

It sounds nice, everyone can give lip service to it, but it never seems to play out in secular reality. Besides, what is the UN going to do? Storm areas where women aren't allowed outside without a male escort? Sure, genocide can't get them to act, but feminism, that's worse...

 

she made a lot of assumptions about Emma and even went so far as to pull the "Youre a celebrity = your life is wonderful" card...which is pretty ignorant. 

I think the author is suggesting that Emma has more privilege, being a white person in a higher socio-economic class.  

 

I like how you criticize what you perceived as gay support undertones yet in the same breath you claim every man and woman deserve equal rights. 

I don't think supporting men/women equal rights is the same things as supporting gay partnerships. I don't think men and women should have the same rights because men and women are the same, I think men and women should have the same rights because men and women have the same dignity as humans. Hereto and homo relationships are different, that's what makes them attractive to people in them, respectively. This isn't the place to go deeper than that but the ides that both relationships deserves the same treatment because they are the same isn't true. 

 

Side note, I like how the movement claims to support both genders but only discusses female issues. 

 

Speaking of bad grammar, I saw something online today titled "Should women have equal rights to men?" Um oh wow... I don't think that what the author intended!