Intellectuals weigh in on Cancel Culture

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

For me the important part is how you deliberately misrepresent what she said by omitting stuff, to allow you to misrepresent the whole incident.


Utter bad faith posting. It's important for me to highlight that to other posters.

Fine. But was it something the wife said, or the husband said?

Wasn't the point that the husband is getting roasted for what his wife tweeted?

Brian?

Silentcorner wrote: »

It's like their love of their new religion is matched by their hatred of Trump....a president that signed an EO to guarantee free speech on US campuses...

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/435183-trump-signs-executive-order-aimed-at-protecting-free-speech-on

Which the signatories of the open letter have also managed to ignore mentioning...

What we are seeing is really weird, they hate the president that has been more pro lgbt, pro black communities, anti war, pro free speech than any president before him....

Why does he need to sign an executive order to give people rights they already have? It's a dog an pony show, to appeal to his base.

2u2me

osarusan wrote: »

For me the important part is how you deliberately misrepresent what she said by omitting stuff, to allow you to misrepresent the whole incident.

Utter bad faith posting. It's important for me to highlight that to other posters.

"Kill the sh!ts"

So what do you think, should he have been fired for what his wife said or not?

I guess you'll disingeuously say he wasn't fired and that they agreed to part ways as a cop out.

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

Fine. But was it something the wife said, or the husband said?

Wasn't the point that the husband is getting roasted for what his wife tweeted?

That's a separate issue to the poster deliberately misrepresenting what happened.


That's the only point I'm making here - that it's dishonest, bad faith posting, to depict the circumstance as they did, and that dishonesty should be highlighted.

Divert divert divert.

2u2me

osarusan wrote: »

That's a separate issue to the poster deliberately misrepresenting what happened.


That's the only point I'm making here - that it's dishonest, bad faith posting, to depict the circumstance as they did, and that dishonesty should be highlighted.

Omitting one fact is not bad faith posting. Arguing it wasn't true would be. You seem to be doing a lot of posting that someone who doesn't care about what this thread is about.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Actually, I feel that we live in a society (not restricted to Ireland) where people are afraid to voice their opinions, for fear of possible backlash.

Society is more tolerant of minority rights and claims, but there are far more crusaders around who are interested in destroying those who object to their crusade. There's more intolerance towards those who don't embrace the rights of those movements.

The transgender movement is a good example of that. It concerns an extremely small percentage of any population, but people who object are getting roasted. Their opinions are of lesser worth than those who fully embrace changing society to accommodate that small percentage, and their larger group of supporters.

I completely disagree. Without the freedom to express opinion society becomes more regressive and less tolerant of minorities. I believe a lot of people feel threatened by equality because people inherently fear change.

At the same time, the vast majority of people support minority rights, especially transgender rights. There isn't a silent majority afraid to speak out. There never really is, it's a tired trope.

There is an increasingly vocal minority who object to social progressiveness. They should be allowed speak out. They shouldn't be attacked or cancelled. They should be debated with.

Brian?

Del Griffith wrote: »

Tolerant of some differences. Not tolerant of different opinions.

Nice catch phrase. Its not an argument against what I said though

osarusan

2u2me wrote: »

Omitting one fact is not bad faith posting.

Yes it is. You know it, I know it.


Anybody reading this thread now knows what you omitted from your original post and why.

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

Yes it is. You know it, I know it.


Anybody reading this thread now knows what you omitted from your original and why.

You were asked a question. Would you mind answering it, please?

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

Divert divert divert.

If a poster offers up something as an example of 'cancel culture' there noting diversionary about highlighting that they are misrepresenting that example.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Why does he need to sign an executive order to give people rights they already have? It's a dog an pony show, to appeal to his base.

Perhaps because the execution of those freedoms were being selectively applied by University authorities, and their own campus rules which sometimes placed the rights of one group over the rights of another?

US Academia and campus rulings regarding feminist, SJW, racial groups often placed their rights above the rights of others. Trump signing the order was a step towards reducing the power of the groups seeking to censor those who didn't want to fully accept such movements.

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

You were asked a question. Would you mind answering it, please?

I feel sorry for the footballer himself, but after what his wife tweeted, I don't see how the team had much choice. His wife called protestors 'disgusting cattle' and said 'kill the sh!ts'.

Prominent people often get in trouble for stuff their partner/family member does. There's nothing new there.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Perhaps because the execution of those freedoms were being selectively applied by University authorities, and their own campus rules which sometimes placed the rights of one group over the rights of another?

US Academia and campus rulings regarding feminist, SJW, racial groups often placed their rights above the rights of others. Trump signing the order was a step towards reducing the power of the groups seeking to censor those who didn't want to fully accept such movements.

If the rights were being selectively applied, it was illegal and there are legal mechanisms to deal with it already. The order doesn't change that.

2u2me

Brian? wrote: »

What's all the "post modern" carry on I keep hearing?

It's a rejection of modern ways of thinking that came out of the enlightenment. Critical thinking, science, empiricism in favour of subjectivism, relativism, a general distrust of theories, a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.

Stephen Hicks has a lot of work available online for free about post-modernism. E.g. this lecture does a great job of explaining it.

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

I feel sorry for the footballer himself, but after what his wife tweeted, I don't see how the team had much choice. His wife called protestors 'disgusting cattle' and said 'kill the sh!ts'.

Prominent people often get in trouble for stuff their partner/family member does. There's nothing new there.

Right. I think I know absolutely everything I need to know about you from this one post.

wildeside

Brian? wrote: »

At the same time, the vast majority of people support minority rights, especially transgender rights. There isn't a silent majority afraid to speak out. There never really is, it's a tired trope.

Wow. That's some statement. The vast majority of people according to who? What minorities are we talking about and what rights exactly? And especially transgender? Sources?

I don't think it's possible to make a more generalised, unsubstantiated, sweeping statement than that, it's pretty impressive.

Looking forward to the clarifications.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

I completely disagree. Without the freedom to express opinion society becomes more regressive and less tolerant of minorities. I believe a lot of people feel threatened by equality because people inherently fear change.

Except I didn't suggest that people shouldn't have the right to express themselves. I pointed out the intolerance of those who are expressing their opinions, against those who are opposed or simply different.

And I don't believe that people are afraid of change. We've had many large changes happen which were supported by the majority. People are afraid of unplanned change, or the need to change just for the sake of change. Many demands for change are based on the need to change, but little consideration is being given for how those changes will affect society.

I believe it's good to question how changes will affect everyone, and more importantly, what further changes will come from the initial change.

At the same time, the vast majority of people support minority rights, especially transgender rights. There isn't a silent majority afraid to speak out. There never really is, it's a tired trope.

As opposed to when, for example, transgender issues were not spoken about, that there wasn't a silent group afraid to speak out? Nah. Just as I remember back in the day, when being Gay was disapproved within society, and people didn't talk about it much. There was a large portion of the population who were forced by society to remain silent, until society had progressed enough, allowing them space to speak.

Now we have the opposite happening. I know people who won't talk about Transgender issues in public for fear of being condemned as being not fair, open, whatever.... whereas they will be vocal within their small group of trusted friends.

There is an increasingly vocal minority who object to social progressiveness. They should be allowed speak out. They shouldn't be attacked or cancelled. They should be debated with.

Completely agree.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

If the rights were being selectively applied, it was illegal and there are legal mechanisms to deal with it already. The order doesn't change that.

No, campus laws were being manipulated and there was a bias being shown during appeals. In many States, students were bound by the campus laws, and while they could claim protection under the national laws, or their rights, the social pressure against doing so was intense. Universities could place a "black" mark on the record of students who didn't accept their rulings.

It's not as clear cut as you want to make out. Perhaps have a look at the outrage about students displaying the American flag in their dorms/apartments, whereas other flags being allowed.

fly_agaric

2u2me wrote: »

It's a rejection of modern ways of thinking that came out of the enlightenment. Critical thinking, science, empiricism in favour of subjectivism, relativism, a general distrust of theories, a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.

The modern US right throws all that in the dustbin too I think.

Anti vaccination, global warming/climate change denialism, a general obsession with cranks and conspiracy theories of all kinds (Sept. 11th was the beginning of that and its only gotten crazier and more disturbed since then). Not to mention US right's fairly irrational responses to empirical fact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

So (as others identified) maybe it is better diagnosed as an American cultural problem that is now "infecting" (ahem) the rest of the West (esp. English speaking parts) due to vast amount of influence and power the US has over the rest of us (as illustrated by the likes of BLM marches kicking off in Irish cities during the lockdown).

2u2me

osarusan wrote: »

That's a separate issue to the poster deliberately misrepresenting what happened.


That's the only point I'm making here - that it's dishonest, bad faith posting, to depict the circumstance as they did, and that dishonesty should be highlighted.

I think what you're actually showing is how much of a bad faith bully you are.

"Black nikes matter" is the only 'racist' thing that she actually said. The other two weren't racist. He was being protested because he was racist. Not for being 'offensive'

Invidious

Brian? wrote: »

At the same time, the vast majority of people support minority rights, especially transgender rights.

Most people will agree that transgender people should be free from harassment and discrimination and should enjoy equal rights and equal protections under the law. Unfortunately, that's not enough for the identitarian left.

Now, we're required to accept that a biological male who started wearing a dress and make-up last Wednesday is every bit as much a "woman" as someone who has spent her entire life in a female body.

If we object to biological males using women's bathrooms and changing facilities, we're transphobes. If we object to physically larger, stronger biological males winning women's athletic competitions, we're transphobes. If a lesbian states that she doesn't want sex with someone who has a penis, she's a transphobe. If we object to removing a 14-year-old girl's breasts because a confused adolescent believes she might be a boy, we're transphobes.

The trans activists' problem is not with lack of support for minority rights. It's with those people who refuse to accept logical absurdities, or refuse to tolerate demonstrably dangerous, unfair, or coercive practices, in the name of another group's alleged rights.

joe40

There is no doubt the so called "cancel culture" has become too pervasive, and is damaging.
At the same time there has never been unlimited, consequence free "free speech"
I'm not sure there should be. Some speech and actions can be harmful. I'm sure there would be fairly widespread support for cancelling a Muslim cleric calling for terrorist attacks. That's on the extreme end I know.

"Cancel culture" is a new word for something that has always existed.

Part of the problem where I think it is applied for very spurious reasons I think, is jittery corporations who take noise on Twitter too seriously.

joe40

2u2me wrote: »

I think what you're actually showing is how much of a bad faith bully you are.

"Black nikes matter" is the only 'racist' thing that she actually said. The other two weren't racist. He was being protested because he was racist. Not for being 'offensive'

If she said that people at a BLM protest should be killed, that's despicable and I have no problem with people protesting. Freedom works both ways.

2u2me

fly_agaric wrote: »

The modern US right throws all that in the dustbin too I think.

So (as others identified) maybe it is better diagnosed as an American cultural problem

Well it did have it roots in France and it has had it's influence in Europe also.

Although I think you're right we're starting to see cancel culture from the US right now also. I'd say it's more a reaction to what was going on in the left for a long time. Obviously this was always going to happen.
I saw this case of Claira Janover recently.

2u2me

joe40 wrote: »

If she said that people at a BLM protest should be killed, that's despicable and I have no problem with people protesting. Freedom works both ways.

I have no problem with that Joe, I was explaining how I was providing an example of her 'racism'. "Black nikes matter" being a better example of racism than "Kill the cattle". Do you think it was fair for that poster to post 4 times calling me bad faith because of that?

Invidious

Invidious wrote: »

Most people will agree that transgender people should be free from harassment and discrimination and should enjoy equal rights and equal protections under the law. Unfortunately, that's not enough for the identitarian left.

The problem I find is that many people would be close to what you say above, but they're uncomfortable with just how vague the whole thing is. It's incredibly complicated. More than it should be really. We have multiple movements being promoted as a single group, so to accept one means accepting all of those groups.

For example, I'm against Gender change for minors. However, that's considered by many to be transphobic. Just as while, I'm supportive of rights for people who undergo full transgender surgery (or drug change) to change their gender... I'm concerned about those who do partial or no actual physical changes, and their place in society (especially in how it relates to safe spaces for women/girls).

If I talk about it publicly, I can face aggression from those who want every aspect of the trans movements to be accepted. I'm not "allowed" to be selective in what I support/disagree with. Instead, there is the demand to be completly accepting, and that I must accept immediately. There's no grace period to allow people to adjust slowly, and get comfortable with the situation. Change has to happen now, and many who disagree are alienated/attacked.

CtevenSrowder

fly_agaric wrote: »

The modern US right throws all that in the dustbin too I think.

Anti vaccination, global warming/climate change denialism, a general obsession with cranks and conspiracy theories of all kinds (Sept. 11th was the beginning of that and its only gotten crazier and more disturbed since then). Not to mention US right's fairly irrational responses to empirical fact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

So (as others identified) maybe it is better diagnosed as an American cultural problem that is now "infecting" (ahem) the rest of the West (esp. English speaking parts) due to vast amount of influence and power the US has over the rest of us (as illustrated by the likes of BLM marches kicking off in Irish cities during the lockdown).

Yes, in some respects, both sides are quite similar. Take a look at any of the trans threads to see the complete abandonment of any concept of scientific rigour.

However, I'd argue that the above has existed within elements of the right for longer, its a newer concept amongst the left, and it culturally has far more power here in Europe.

joe40

2u2me wrote: »

I have no problem with that Joe, I was explaining how I was providing an example of her 'racism'. "Black nikes matter" being a better example of racism than "Kill the cattle". Do you think it was fair for that poster to post 4 times calling me bad faith because of that?

Maybe not bad faith but you must admit you did not give all relevant information to explain the protests.

I had never heard of this story and from your post I thought the protests were extreme for a silly joke. Her other comments show a much more sinister element. Maybe you were not aware of them, I'm not sure.

CtevenSrowder

joe40 wrote: »

Maybe not bad faith but you must admit you did not give all relevant information to explain the protests.

I had never heard of this story and from your post I thought the protests were extreme for a silly joke. Her other comments show a much more sinister element. Maybe you were not aware of them, I'm not sure.

What does it matter though. The point is that his wife did those things. Not him.