Intellectuals weigh in on Cancel Culture

jimgoose

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

...We are the 1%, dudes. The most educated, lucky, wealthy, peaceful, and content people who have ever existed.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day!


American society is slowly disappearing up it's own arsehole. Just do what I do, and politely ignore it. Whatever you do, don't emulate any aspect of it.

Wanderer78

Silentcorner wrote:

Anyway, it is nice for all these liberals to tell us what many have been pointing out for years, but the fact that they point to the danger of Donald Trump and his threat to democracy as an example (they don't explain exactly how he is a threat to democracy) is in of itself an illiberal statement to make....but it's odd in that Trump's speech on July forth was in complete agreement with them...they probably watched the CNN/Bloomberg/MSNBC/NYT etc version.

Use of the word 'liberals'= one hell of a boring thread. Trump and dedemocratisation needs no real explanation, as it's fairly obvious!

Yellow_Fern

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Peterson's books are very well written and jargon free. Very easy to read. Political science may not be a real science but psychology is. Psychology is the not hardest of sciences but it is a science and it has some the most sophisticated maths because humans are so complex and unpredictable. So the point is, psychology has technical jargon and it requires it.

It's rare that you find people throwing technical terms from psychology around whereas you will find people doing so with the political science terms. (I have a BA in Abnormal Psychology which I did late in life)

As for JP, it depends on what he's writing about. I found his rules to be a bizarre book with the political rant just attached to the back of the book. Completely unrelated to the first 2/3 of the book.

In any case, it's my personal hangup. I've heard people yapping about neo this and post that, for a very long time (my parents have many friends who consider themselves to be "intellectuals", and I've met others in Universities). I find a lot of it shifts definitions and meanings depending on who is talking, and they all believe that they're the best expert on the subject. There's little space for genuine discussion because they're quoting from various bibles of thought.

silverharp

On the plus side hopefully the fall out from corona is that a lot of US colleges will go out of business, they dont add value and just seem to be fast breeder reactors for cranks

Yellow_Fern

Deleted User wrote: »

It's rare that you find people throwing technical terms from psychology around whereas you will find people doing so with the political science terms. (I have a BA in Abnormal Psychology which I did late in life)

As for JP, it depends on what he's writing about. I found his rules to be a bizarre book with the political rant just attached to the back of the book. Completely unrelated to the first 2/3 of the book.

In any case, it's my personal hangup. I've heard people yapping about neo this and post that, for a very long time (my parents have many friends who consider themselves to be "intellectuals", and I've met others in Universities). I find a lot of it shifts definitions and meanings depending on who is talking, and they all believe that they're the best expert on the subject. There's little space for genuine discussion because they're quoting from various bibles of thought.

I thought he quiet nicely tied in a lot of lessons from psychology, human evolution and history pretty well. He is not christian and I think the increasingly non christian world does need some moral codes.

ancapailldorcha

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I thought he quiet nicely tied in a lot of lessons from psychology, human evolution and history pretty well. He is not christian and I think the increasingly non christian world does need some moral codes.

I've read his book. It's utter twaddle. He mixes the sort of advice your grandparents would give with Christianity with bizarre and inane ranting about the left, feminism and academia interspersed with some token references to other religions here and there. Seems to have an odd fascination with Freud as well. My hackles were raised when he was more than happy to point out the tyrannical nature of communism and the atrocities committed by Mao and Stalin but he was relatively quiet when it came to Hitler and concentration camps.

The idea that he is some intellectual is just daft.

Bonniedog

A university that would be considered one of the elite institutions once accepted as a doctoral theses a "social sciences" rant that was found later to include made up references!

Says all you really need to know about "social sciences."

It was once a serious discipline but these days you have people becoming "doctors" on the basis of tendentious nonsense.

In that lies a lot of the problems as you have people lecturing in universities who are not that bright, which is forgivable, but worse than that believe that their IKEA doctorates entitle them to lecture the rest of us on basically anything, especially anything with a tenuous claim to have something to do with "social justice," or "equality." All makey up stuff that fails Popper's test of scientific validity.

joe40

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It's not trivial when people's lives are ruined by the mob. People have lost their jobs because of their opninions. It's not nuclear war but it is important that you can express your views freely without having to worry you will be portrayed as a racist or sexist for questioning a political point of view.

You're right it's not trivial, but neither is it new. There was never a time that you could express views freely with no consequence. Imagine criticising the Catholic Church in Ireland in the 50s 60s. Up until quite recently the parish priest had a large say in what teachers were employed. If you wanted a job you were a regular mass goer.
Imagine expressing socialist views in America in the past if would not have been acceptable.

I don't think there was ever a time when when
free speech existed without consequences. I'm not saying it's right, just not a new phenomenon.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

A number of signatories have retracted their support because they do not agree with the views of some of the other signatories. One person who retracted is Jennifer Finney Boylan, a Barnard professor.

That’s like something out of a parody. :pac:

jimgoose

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

A number of signatories have retracted their support because they do not agree with the views of some of the other signatories. One person who retracted is Jennifer Finney Boylan, a Barnard professor.

That’s like something out of a parody. :pac:

She's transgender, so that would be JK Rowling she has a problem with. Yeah, this stuff just keeps delivering. :pac:

paw patrol

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've read his book. It's utter twaddle. He mixes the sort of advice your grandparents would give with Christianity with bizarre and inane ranting about the left, feminism and academia interspersed with some token references to other religions here and there. Seems to have an odd fascination with Freud as well. My hackles were raised when he was more than happy to point out the tyrannical nature of communism and the atrocities committed by Mao and Stalin but he was relatively quiet when it came to Hitler and concentration camps.

The idea that he is some intellectual is just daft.

but you would think that:rolleyes: in fact I've had bet my house on this type of contemptuous review from you.


...there is not a snowballs chance you read that book with an open mind.

Chris_Heilong

The writer of a book about a magic schoolboy is considered an Intellectual?
I am happy the world seems to be waking up to the dangers of these Marxist foot soldiers, My sister said she wanted to sign up to a good cause and had a look at some coarse on art & environment activism, she said it was a room of people having a meeting talking about who they should mass flag or try to cancel on Twitter, she said most of them did not even know or care about who the person was and they just followed the the loudest voices lead. I explained to her that is what modern activism today is all about and she would be better off just donating to charity instead.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

jimgoose wrote: »

She's transgender, so that would be JK Rowling she has a problem with. Yeah, this stuff just keeps delivering. :pac:

Yup. She didn’t say who she objected to but it isn’t hard to figure out. :pac:

Yellow_Fern

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I thought he quiet nicely tied in a lot of lessons from psychology, human evolution and history pretty well. He is not christian and I think the increasingly non christian world does need some moral codes.

Err, nah. I read his book, the problem being that none of it was original.

If you read a lot of self-help or personal development books (as a teacher, and mentor, I read a lot of this stuff), you quickly realise that most of them are repeating the same suggestions, they're just explained in different ways. And therein is the value. The different perspectives can touch a cord within your own psyche, which helps you to actually commit to personal change.

But JPs book added very little that wasn't already covered by a host of other developmental books, or common morals already present within western society. Oh, he threw in Psychological terminology and phrases from philosophy to make them sound different, but ultimately it was the same thing.

The rant at the end made little sense to me and I actually didn't finish it. I have the book in my study, but I've never returned to it, because I found it to be a rather shallow book. I enjoyed many of his online presentations, but found little in the book, to match the intelligence shown online.

As for psychology, I'm rather skeptical about it as a "science". I find that it creates many of the problems it seeks to resolve... but failing to resolve them, and further complicating them to justify it's importance.

ancapailldorcha wrote:

The idea that he is some intellectual is just daft.

I found him very intelligent (possibly too intelligent) when he stuck to areas where he'd done extensive research in. However, he tended to head off into other areas, where his own opinions became more important, and opened him up to conflict.

He was simply someone that was needed at the time... to stand up against the PC brigade and provide a focus for attention online. Milo discredited himself too quickly, and JP stepped into the void left behind. TBF at the time, there were few intelligent people talking back to feminists/SJW/etc online or in the media. It's different now since we have almost a grassroots movement of people online taking a stand, calling out PC or sexist nonsense. He's not needed anymore.

Bonniedog

Most of signatories are Z list.

If Boylan is considered to be an "intellectual" then I look forward to Harry Redknapp doing a lecture tour on Foucault.

Surprised that some of them signed up to the spurious claim that the whole thing emanates with the right and Trump.

jimgoose

Bonniedog wrote: »

Most of signatories are Z list.

If Boylan is considered to be an "intellectual" then I look forward to Harry Redknapp doing a lecture tour on Foucault.

Surprised that some of them signed up to the spurious claim that the whole thing emanates with the right and Trump.

Apparently deciding that your gender is wrong instantly makes you an expert on everything from racism to economics.

Well it's obvious your transgender one had to drop out because of Rowling. Her community would have turned on her and cancelled her.

circadian

RWCNT wrote: »

Can someone explain to me how the hard left takeover of higher education took place exactly?

I'm not long out of higher education myself and my lecturers mainly stuck to the syllabus around business management and economics. Was the lecturer tapping out The Communist Manifesto in morse code on his desk the whole time and I just didn't notice?

-.-. --- -. - .-. --- .-.. / - .... . / -- . .- -. ... / --- ..-. / .--. .-. --- -.. ..- -.-. - .. --- -.

jimgoose

Deleted User wrote: »

Well it's obvious your transgender one had to drop out because of Rowling. Her community would have turned on her and cancelled her.

I'm reminded of the word "unperson" from Orwell's Newspeak. :pac:

osarusan

RWCNT wrote: »

Was the lecturer tapping out The Communist Manifesto in morse code on his desk the whole time and I just didn't notice?

Yes I was. That's why I failed you, comrade.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

Well it's obvious your transgender one had to drop out because of Rowling. Her community would have turned on her and cancelled her.

It’s actually mental. Like, with 150 or so signatories, anyone signing it can safely enough say that they won’t agree with the views of all the other signatories. And that’s kind of the point.

That shows the power of the transgender lobby. For such an apparently marginalised group, that’s some power they wield.

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

"Intellectuals" are speaking up...150 of them are anyway, including Salman Rushdie, JK Rowling....they warn us of the dangers illiberalism that is creeping into our society and culture, the intolerance.

Sorry about this, excuse the self confessed idiot and all, but the thread is 12 hours and six pages long so I really have to ask the burning question, when the absolute fukc did JKK Rowling become "an intellectual"?

Bonniedog

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry about this, excuse the self confessed idiot and all, but the thread is 12 hours and six pages long so I really have to ask the burning question, when the absolute fukc did JKK Rowling become "an intellectual"?

Don't think she ever claimed to be!

She just said that men aren't women.

jimgoose

Bonniedog wrote: »

...men aren't women.

Jehovah!! :pac:

Yellow_Fern

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

My hackles were raised when he was more than happy to point out the tyrannical nature of communism and the atrocities committed by Mao and Stalin but he was relatively quiet when it came to Hitler and concentration camps.

Actually he refers to how when he read about cases of torture at belsen and buchenwald it was a turning point in how he understood evil. You are outrageously gaslighting, because he is not trying to survey evil but here you are implying he is a crypto fascist. Anyway communism is a lot more topical today than national socialism, given the interest in democratic socialism in the west and the genocidal horrors going on China.

Deleted User wrote: »

Err, nah. I read his book, the problem being that none of it was original.

If you read a lot of self-help or personal development books (as a teacher, and mentor, I read a lot of this stuff), you quickly realise that most of them are repeating the same suggestions

For example?

Deleted User wrote: »

As for psychology, I'm rather skeptical about it as a "science". I find that it creates many of the problems it seeks to resolve.

For example? Science refers to the disciplines that can be subject to the scientific method. You cant really subject history or politics to the scientific method, but you can subject human/ and animal psychology to the scientific method. You could argue that String Theory is a great example of a problem being made to justify a field but who would say that physics isnt a science.

Bonniedog

Well you haven't heard Yellow Fern, that "anti communism" is the same as Nazism! Did you not get the memo?

Reminds me that when a motion was tabled by mostly Polish and eastern Europeans last year condemning equally the atrocities committed by the Nazis and socialists, that the shinners voted against it.

Yellow_Fern

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

For example?

*Blinks*.

Don't really have time (or interest) to go through his book again. What I said isn't particularly difficult, so I'm sure you can draw your own comparisons. (don't take that the wrong way, I'm just very tired since I'm doing online classes with a strong time difference)

For example? Science refers to the disciplines that can be subject to the scientific method. You cant really subject history or politics to the scientific method, but you can subject human/ and animal psychology to the scientific method. You could argue that String Theory is a great example of a problem being made to justify a field but who would say that physics isnt a science.

Psychologists through their sessions with patients will often lead them to expectations and create the state of mind themselves, through leading questions and observations. This is a very common criticism about psychology throughout the last thirty years.

Honestly, I don't have the time to go into real detail. I am sorry. Usually I would have no issue explaining my pov, but I'm doing online exams (which i hate doing) this week, and I can't really invest time in threads beyond simple messages.

rdwight

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

There is no such thing as cancel culture. Its a fantasy.

Maybe check out the different experiences of op-ed page editors James Bennet (NYT) and Karen Attiah (Washington Post) over the last few weeks.

rdwight

"I am liberal but to a degree
I want everybody to be free
but if you think I'd let Barry Goldwater
move in next door and marry my daughter
you must think I'm crazy"

Not a big fan of the perpetually adolescent Mr Zimmerman, but he did write some good lyrics.

lsjmhar

Don't worry. Everything will be fine!!