SKAM Season 3 Episode 5 UN-CUT REACTION!

Isak did not have legitimate grievances with Pride and from what I can tell from all your comments neither do you.

Alex Hilbert

Even though I'm not from Oslo, you may very well meet me on those streets as I frequent the city as a consequence of my political dealings, if we do I'll hold you to that ;-) No worries, don't think it was intentional or that it came from a place of ill intent. I get tired of these discussions too, but I never seem to be able to let them go :-) I really do hope you have a great time, Oslo is a lovely city if you know where to go. I can also say "hear, hear" to Norway being expensive. My dear lord. I've gotten an ever increasing sense of that fact as I've explored our Scandinavian neighbours, the US, lived a year in England, and just this past week spending a long weekend in Kiev (politics). How we manage is beyond me.

Vegard Løknes

Dude, I often visit Norway and NOTHING is cheap there. LOL I'll be back there this summer actually, and as much as I look forward to it I'm kinda dreading spending 50 dollars on lunch everyday. LOL! Still, I love the country. This will be my first time back there since seeing Skam, since I only started watching Skam last year. So I will be seeing it through different eyes this time. Like I often stay at a certain hotel that is hugely significant in season three...but this is the first time I'll be staying at it since seeing THAT episode. So it's gonna be fun. :) Sorry for belittling you. You're young, but very smart for your age. You should probably keep arguing/debating, as doing so will keep you sharp. But I'm not going to do any more of it here since it's unfair to clog KY's comment section with our arguments. :) Anyway, take care. Maybe I'll run into you on the streets of Oslo. If so, we'll head to the nearest book store and I'll get you those Ayn Rand books. Probably cost me several hundred dollars, but oh well. ;)

Thomas Pearce

100% agree with you, Jessica

Ingeborg

Have an enjoyable time Thomas! I recently tried their cold brew coffee. It was fairly cheap even here in Norway, so if you haven't yet, have a go. Freedom of association, even on the internet <3. Yes, you can choose whether or not to engage me in discussion, but starting to only to suddenly state "You are just plain wrong" and nothing else, is handing the discussion to the other side. Funny how people belittle those they disagree with online. Yes, I am young, but have been a political being in fairly high party offices since the age of fifteen, so try to listen to the argument, rather than point out my age. Also, never read Ayn Rand, actually only ever read "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill when it comes to purely ideological books.

Vegard Løknes

I am arguing from a place of principle. A discussion of what is right and wrong, not what one out of 193 sovereign nations currently has as their law. It is a severe overreach of government power to force private people who do not want to to associate to associate. It is government tyranny.

Vegard Løknes

"it should be easy to engage in such discussion," It's also easy to not bother with the discussion. This being the internet, we all occasionally encounter the young man who just worked his way through several Ayn Rand novels and now wants to challenge convention. Sometimes we entertain said young man, sometimes we don't. Depends on what our time and mood allow. Like right now I gotta get to Starbucks, so will be away for awhile...

Thomas Pearce

"So yes, you cannot use government power to force a private business or corporation to do business with people they don't want to do business with." Yes, you can. As the Supreme Court decided. Right now the Federal Civil Rights Act is being enforced and several people/businesses have challenged it and lost. So to say it can't be done---when it is already being done--is foolish. Are you saying you SHOULDN'T be allowed to do so? If so, fine--hold onto that theory. That you are allowed to do.

Thomas Pearce

Basically, unless they're trolling, it should be easy to engage in such discussion, and proving them wrong, within the parameters of a civilised discussion isn't hard either, even if they themselves aren't convinced. Not partaking at all, is giving up, and at least handing a debate to the other side. Also quite funny how you compare a gay guy criticising societal views on LGBT-issues with flat earthers

Vegard Løknes

In a conversation about said topic, yes.

Vegard Løknes

"How on earth can you claim that I'm wrong without trying to argue against my position. I am right by default." You shouldn't confuse someones unwillingness to argue with you as their inability to argue against you. There are people who love to argue that the earth is flat. Does an unwillingness to entertain their foolishness make them "right by default?"

Thomas Pearce

You are completely and utterly incorrect. Rights exist beyond government, but it's ideal if the government also recognises those rights. Yes, people can get a job and save, ask others for help, start their own business, or whatever. There are a multitude of options if you want to dedicate yourself to fixing an issue. Businesses are a way one organises associating individuals, because all businesses are made of people, and those people have rights, similar rights apply to a business. It is different when it comes to government, because all government employees act on behalf of the government, and government should be and is of, by, and for everyone in the areas it governs. So yes, you cannot use government power to force a private business or corporation to do business with people they don't want to do business with. Same as you can't force a consumer to become a customer in a business they do not support. In essence, you can't force an African American baker to cater to a far right nationalist event, or a gay couple to have their children in a Christian day care centre.

Vegard Løknes

"private businesses and individuals have the inherent right to freedom of association. " Individuals, yes. (Usually. Although even that is subjective). But business owners have no such right. What they DO have is legal responsibilities and guidelines to follow.

Thomas Pearce

"Yes. Because it would ruin them if they did it on a ridiculous basis," Depends. Open a business in my hometown back in rural Alabama---a business in which you openly and proudly discriminated against blacks, Mexicans, and gays---and you'd probably surpass Wal-Mart, Starbucks and Amazon in total revenue.

Thomas Pearce

Yes. Because it would ruin them if they did it on a ridiculous basis, but also because private businesses and individuals have the inherent right to freedom of association.

Vegard Løknes

Value is subjective in this case, that some people value it doesn't give it value to society.

Vegard Løknes

"I favour the right of private businesses to refuse anyone they'd like." There's good reasons why the US doesn't allow businesses to discriminate. (And they're NOT allowed due to the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. ) Business in the Deep South could refuse to serve or hire black people, making it hard for blacks to live a normal, functioning life. "Well, then those blacks should get a job, save money, and move to the north" some would say. But, it's hard to get a job to save money when businesses can refuse to hire you. Secondly, all this leads to a very slippery slope. Not long ago, during the debate over Mississippi's "religious liberty" law, there were actual discussions over whether emergency personal such as cops, fireman, and paramedics should be allowed to refuse help to someone who's "lifestyle they disagreed with." Lastly, no business owner can say he's FORCED to serve anyone. Because said owner was not FORCED to open a business in the first place. If a person has such strong beliefs that he can't even interact with certain people, then that person should not open a business of public accommodation. But if he chooses to open such a business, then he must be willing to follow the rules and laws that come with doing so. In shot---Person A did not choose to be black, but Person B did choose to open a business. So it's not hard to figure out who the law has to protect.

Thomas Pearce

Lastly, as far as I'm aware, if Pence ever supported conversion therapy, or still does, it is on a voluntary basis. He shouldn't support it with public funds, as it doesn't work, but Democrats shouldn't fund alternative medicines or organic foods either, so, you know, pick your battles

Vegard Løknes

Anyways, political disagreements do not translate to discrimination. I favour the right of private businesses to refuse anyone they'd like. We have freedom of association, even in the marketplace. If such a business exists, they'll lose business by not selling to select groups, and may even lose groups they want to do business with as they start protesting against those rules. In effect, stupid discrimination will often lead to bankruptcy, and if not that, at least less business. As far as I am aware the law enacted on the water closet issue stated that one had to use the bathroom that coincided with one's birth certificated sex. That is a sex one has the power to change legally. Thus, this is not that big of a deal. I do agree that it is government overreach, but no greater than what Democrats work for every day, just in other areas

Vegard Løknes

Okay, marriage, if the government is in it at all it must be to facilitate the production of new citizens, right? I'd rather the government not be in marriage at all, but for it to promote reproduction in the framework of a stable family is fine. How on earth can you claim that I'm wrong without trying to argue against my position. I am right by default.

Vegard Løknes

i agree so much with what you said about mental illness, and you're 100% right. But I also understand that Isak is very overwhelmed by it. I'm assuming his mum has had no control over it (yet?) and he's only 16 and his dad left and with her being mentally ill (i don't think they ever said what she had...), it must be scary for him. Like he said, she's constantly on edge and thinks the world is ending and stuff, that's scary for a kid. Of course he'll think that way. He hasn't been taught or helped with any of it. And what Isak said really hurt, because I get where he's coming from, people do associate being gay with femininess but that is not a bad thing. Sadly, it would be a bit...'harder' to come out when you're masculine and gay, because everyone would assume you're feminine and will act a certain way and sadly people will ALWAYS assume you are straight but that doesn't make you 'above' being gay. I understand his struggle but it doesn't make it okay. You can see he doesn't have a problem with feminine gay people but it does come off like he doesn't want to be associated with that, which is sad. But this is his obstacle and he just needs to be educated, which he was. He's a good person, just a bit ignorant. But it's okay because you live and learn. What Emma said pisses me off. Like what a conceited heterosexual bitch. Be upset, I get it, she is hurt that he lead her on, but you have no right as a heterosexual person to tell someone to "get out of the closet".

They want to send gay people to conversion therapy, supports a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage... just take a minute and look it up. <a href="http://time.com/4406337/mike-pence-gay-rights-lgbt-religious-freedom/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://time.com/4406337/mike-pence-gay-rights-lgbt-religious-freedom/</a>

Jessica Irene Conifer

The fact that you don't find value or meaning in Pride for yourself is fine, but most everything else you said is just way off.

Jessica Irene Conifer

Totally legitimate to say some people don;t relate to or find value for themselves in Pride, not really legit for people to say that it has no value at all, obviously it does. :)

Jessica Irene Conifer

What was interesting to me about the confrontation between Eskild and Isak was that not long before this aired, there was a series of opinion pieces in a national newspaper discussing this back and forth. I always found it interesting how Skam picked up things like this from the current public discussion and used it on the show. While I disagree with Isak on the whole, I do think it’s an issue for some that they can’t see themselves in the gay culture surrounding pride, so it’s an interesting debate for the show to bring up and it was really topical at the time.

Ingeborg

Well, I for one am glad you listened to Krissa even though it does, as you say, take away the subtlety. This way it’s closer to the semantical meaning of the original line. Kudos, Henrik! 🙂

Bella_twin

Overanalyzing as usual, but the last scene with Sonja and Even kissing... She is kissing him with enthusiasm, happy he's back, thinking it was just a phase, thinking they will go on as usual. He looks more like he kiss her back because he doesn't know what else to do. He called it off with Isak, but he's already taken one step away from her and doesn't seem to be quite ready to reverse that step. Make any sense to anybody else?

Charlotte

The entire exchange uses the same grammatical form, a "past tense hypothetical". Even starts with "Vad tror du foreldrene dine hadde sagt om du ble sammen med meg?", and Isak responds "Jeg tror det hadde gått fint". Bla bla bla, and then they end the exchange in the same form. Isak asks: "Vad tror du dine foreldrer, da, hadde sagt om... meg?", and Even says "Jeg tror de hadde diggt deg" In English, this past tense hypothetical unambigously means something that did not happen or is not going to happen. But in Norwegian it's ambiguous, and translating it into "I think they would love you" is not *wrong*, but by doing so you de-ambiguate it, you pick one interpretation of it. But Krissa persuaded me that there's something here, the original Norwegian dialogue is deliberately using this grammatical form, so I picked the "would have" for the last sentence to make that point. It makes it much more noticeable though, and not as subtle as the original, but it's simply not possible to translate the ambiguity.

Henrik Schröder

Scandinavians unite! I am swedish! 😊

Charlotte

Dunno about this, I think it is meant as an answer to a hypothetical situation. But "ville" would have fitted better.

Vegard Løknes

Please do enlighten me. How does Pence seek to take away the rights and liberties of LGBT-individuals?

Vegard Løknes

"Only a limited number of people, people without power, support discrimination against LGBT people in the west" Have you heard of Mike Pence? 'People without power', are you having a laugh??

lolgodwhy

Var jeg som fikk det endret. Valgte å gå for det nettopp fordi jeg husker jeg lurte på om de var døde. Hyggelig at en (nesten) norsklærer er enig :)

And I also think that if I go into the implied conditional clause, I will spoil too much for our dear reactor. 🤐

Bella_twin

Yup. And only a course in didacticism away from being a card carrying Norwegian teacher. 😊 And I agree that the line is confusing and I think it was intentional.

Bella_twin

I think if he meant to say “would love” he would have used “vil digge”” or “ville ha digget”. And I think the line is used deliberately in that it is easy to miss the nuance when you first hear it... 😉

Bella_twin

You are so astute. I love your reactions. This episode was definitely a roller coaster. I can't wait for the rest &lt;3

decraziness

He says: «Jeg tror de HADDE DIGGET deg», which is past tense. So I think the translation is correct. 🙂

Bella_twin

Will not use your space to start a debate Ky😊 We are happy to see you enjoy this episode...

Nui Tammakoon

I like your nuance. But I don't think Isak judges people who aren't like him, he just states that he isn't like the stereotypical gay person, i.e the kind of flamboyant gay person society promotes, and Pride promotes. Therefore I hate the Eskild speech because I see it as putting words and intentions in Isak's mind that he never had.

Vegard Løknes

Thank you for your deep and wonderful argument that most definitely worked to sway my perspective.

Vegard Løknes

You are just plain wrong.

Jessica Irene Conifer

I disagree

Jessica Irene Conifer

Miss you! Glad that you are back. I have to hold my tongue for many things you asked😊 I do like Eskild speech. I understand Isak for his point of views, but again it s not right to judge others because they are different from you.

Nui Tammakoon

His speech is illogical, emotional, and judges people who have legitimate grievances with movements such as "Pride" and what they stand for

Vegard Løknes

Fully and completely disagree. Pride is attended by people who virtue signal that they support a minority culture. Well, there is no such culture. The only thing uniting gay people is who they're attracted to, in all other ways we're just as diverse as the rest of society. That's a wonderful thing. No one in the west is deprived of their rights. Even a country like Ukraine, barely a western country, has legalised homosexuality in 1991, and treats us equally under the law. The only way gay people are treated differently is by society. This is something that can be fought against by never attending the sexually promiscuous "Pride", and instead show that such disgusting displays do not represent gay people. Pride serves to exclude gays from society, working against it serves to unite society, even in our differences. Crimes happen to all, the question is whether it is unprecedented relative to other groups and if it is sanctioned by the state. Neither are the case in the west

Vegard Løknes

I know a few hundred thousand people who have attended Pride festivals and parades around the world who disagree strongly with you. Every day LGBTQ+ people are harassed, refused their rights, assaulted, and even killed or take their own lives EVERY DAY, even in "the west."

Jessica Irene Conifer

The Eskild speech is amazing

Jessica Irene Conifer

I hate this episode for the talk with Eskild. The show pretends as if he's right, when there doesn't have to be a conflict. Society and gay culture both strengthen the stereotype of gay people like Eskild, or drag queens and so on. Pride is no longer a parade for those who fight for equal rights. Us who do not fit into the gay box in any other way than that we like other guys, hate this, because we always have to prove something. Pride in the west has become a disgraceful display of sexual promiscuity and thus stands for something a lot of people can't support. Only a limited number of people, people without power, support discrimination against LGBT people in the west, Pride is thus obsolete in the eyes of it's original purpose, as there is equality under the law. Some stupid countries like Sweden and Canada even give gay people like me extra protection, that we don't deserve. Equality under the law is the highest goal, and Pride no longer promotes that.

Vegard Løknes