Yeah well I wasn’t there, so just going by your post and pitched in to say that it’s a valid question in general: how is this book relevant for me? If asked in good faith, the author I suppose can see it as an opportunity to explain for example why that woman’s story can be interesting to a male audience. Maybe even school the interviewer if so inclined.

I just feel like we should sometimes check our feminist impulses and recognize that some questions are valid, even when we may suspect that they come from a bad place.

I’m not sure the interpretation has to be that “female themes” are “lesser”. People will generally and naturally relate more to themes that strongly correlate with personal, lived experience. It is not strange that a man would relate less to motherhood as a theme. Similarly, a woman might naturally relate less to fiction on father-son relationships. A city dweller might relate less to stories about life in the countryside. And so on. It is useful and instructive to get out of one’s own skin and mind now and then. It helps build empathy and works of fiction can be very helpful in that regard. But that does not change the fact that themes hit much harder when you can relate from personal experience.

As a man, strongly female themes and lead female characters are a-ok and can be touching even, but some male themes hit me much harder because I know what that feels like in my own skin so to say.

He clearly thinks he’s going to extend it. But he may indeed cause irreparable damage.

Maybe. And apparently you really want to believe it. Not saying it’s necessarily true or false, just that the people complaining on this thread make some valid points. We do after all like to vilify China/NK on this side of the fence. Vilification goes both ways ;)

There’s no credible sources in any of this. A ban may or may not have come to pass, and if it has, it’s possible it’s for some health-related reason, similarly to how processed meats have been taken out of school lunches in other countries. The news itself is not necessarily false, but there’s a definitive spin to this as with almost all English-language news on North Korea. Unfortunately it’s hard for any of us to get any objective info on what’s happening in the country.

Ah isn’t it fun? Liberals downvoting you for speaking out against arms sales. The world is itching for war and preparing for it unfortunately and many liberals are fully onboard.

Are we still going to refer to them as Putin’s puppets, when the US has been angling for a while now to become the greatest exporter of alt-right ideology? Doesn’t this detract from the fact that the US isn’t exporting democracy anymore (if it ever did) and is instead exporting its degeneration into whatever Bannon/Trump/Musk/Thiel and others want it to become?

Maybe calling them Putin’s puppets helps discredit them on US soil, but the rest of us see the US go the way of Russia and China. And a bleak future in which most of us will only get to choose between different flavors of authoritarianism…

Yeah it’s weird because you can both see Russia as an exporter of hate, but the US is on it too. I guess before late everyone will be on it.

I wish people in general stopped looking for good guys and bad guys. My maxim as I grow older and weary is everyone is awful, unless proven otherwise. Or, in other words, it’s all geopolitics and a complex web of conflicting interests. Combating factions choose their alliances less on principle and more on what serves their long term goals and immediate tactical aims. In the meantime we are fed whatever narrative paints one or the other side “good” and depending on our politics and possible stake in a conflict convince ourselves that we are “on the right side of history”. But history is largely written by the victor and in hindsight it is always easier to say what was good or bad. In the heat of the moment, when lives, money, and land are at stake, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Yes I know, when all else fails it’s “what’s good for the community”. Oh well, thank you for bothering to make the case for the ban, I understand your points but really do wish more people saw that the splintering into ever more siloed “communities” where no one is seriously challenged (and consequently the lack of common spaces for exposure to radically different perspectives and the challenging of one’s own) is part of what’s wrong with the world right now.

The more you hear your own views echoed back at you on a regular basis, the more shocking it becomes when you suddenly read something radically different and the harder it is for you then to come to any sort of rapprochement with the other. This is noticeable everywhere today, left and right, sadly also quite a lot in “liberal” spaces, leading many to think that liberals have become intolerant of anything other than the smell of their own farts. Where is this leading us? Nowhere good I think.

So perhaps we should seek to challenge bans by default rather than find justification for them. I reflexively tend to scrutinize the censoring of posts and people for that reason. And do wish more ‘heretical’ viewpoints were allowed in here. It’s not like “neocon” (it’s in the name, so hardly a troll) expressed any fringe or criminally insane views or like he attacked other users. Ah anyway, why do I bother I do not know, it’s probably already too late. Sometimes I feel like I am trying to bring the world back from the brink of collapse. It is easier to let it slide.

Thanks. Well the only thing I notice is that I do not agree with some - perhaps all - of his views. So, as I said, mod overreach and ideological bias. Same old. The downvote storm is almost inevitable for one who does not fit in, when you have created a silo with a strong hive-mind mentality. Oh well, I guess I have to accept that all online spaces are turning into echo chambers. Maybe it’s unavoidable.

How did you determine they’re a troll? I couldn’t.

Nearly all of this guy’s comments are being removed. I suspect mod overreach along with a hefty dose of ideological bias, as usual.

Your use of the verb “learned” and the adjective “well-educated” suggested that you bought into these views wholesale and uncritically and are now sharing them as some sort of epiphany. Hence the downvotes.

Because stating that people are biased for beauty and youth and western, predominantly white media are biased for whiteness, is like saying that the sky is blue. It adds nothing and detracts from the story, which is more about the excessive drinking culture in youth, backpacking, thrill-seeking, Southeast Asia, and a host more closely related topics. Noticing that the faces on the BBC heading are pretty blonde girls and making an issue of it is anything but deep. It is the most superficial thing you could notice and comment on, bordering on creepy, because you reduce a story to “pretty blondes”. If and when you suspect that an important story is buried because its protagonists are not conventionally attractive or because of their race or gender identity, then do bring it up. Then you are helping elevate people whose stories perhaps should be told and heard more widely.

Possibly. But why does this need to be said? How is it relevant here? What does it offer?

It’s weird. But I also remember how many were quick to point to Russia for blowing up a pipeline and much later it turned out Russia had nothing to do with it.

As far as I know China is not only the largest economy or about on par with the US, but has also made huge strides in renewables, so this makes sense actually, much as we are not used to hearing international bodies inviting China to lead. I would go as far as saying this is a case of China already leading the world - at least at home, not sure how clean or energy-efficient their offshore projects are.

Honestly you sound like you are part of the problem with America if you would rather see your country ruined in some self-fulfilling prophecy just so that your political opponents will lose next election.

Really? The Telegraph? All the while downvoting the poor bot that’s trying to signal that this is a website know for rather poor quality journalism? (to put it mildly)