Fine with me. He said some shitty things and is facing some professional consequences. He’s not in my category of guy who did nothing wrong - he’s in my category of dumb asshole who is justly facing consequences for the dumb things he said.
Nope.
And if that leaves younger, less secure and successful academics afraid to discuss important issues publicly, is that also a good thing?
Okay. What if you work with a racist?
It shouldn’t. It might leave them afraid to say stupid and ignorant things, which is fine with me.
Well, I prefer ‘online mobbing or bullying’. Seems to me people are awful sensitive about the term “Cancel Culture”. I don’t know if back in 2015 this was a common term that Jon Ronston would have known and used.
I don’t know enough about it to comment intelligently either. Seems there was plenty of fuckery all around.
Bloody hell, if Steven Pinker is considered ‘stupid and ignorant’ then what hope do the rest of us have? People scrutinising their every utterance for how it might be misconstrued and avoiding anything the least bit controversial is the opposite of an open society that allows free exchange of ideas.
And why do you think sanctioning people socially is such a great idea when, as others have pointed out, the ‘bigots’ can easily be in the majority? Social disapprobation is a power that can very easily be turned against you.
I work with racists. I’m pretty sure every job I’ve had included some racists as coworkers.
You may be right about the tweeter in question. But is it unfair to say that the tweeter is a Trumphole, but she/he’s not wrong about criticizing those who want to destroy the lively-hood of someone they disagree with? I mean, is there something that you know about the examples shown that would justify the underlined actions prescribed?
Pinker is a smart person who, like Sam Harris and many others, has said some remarkably dumb things and then whined about it when criticized. Ego makes it easier for successful smart people to say dumb things without realizing how dumb they are, and then refuse to be educated about its dumbness.
It wasn’t in common use until 2018.
Harry and Meghan weren’t cancelled. I was using them as an example to try and work out if iiandyiiii really believes rich people don’t have feelings. I’m sorry I mentioned them.
Is he, though? Because the Linguistic Society of America didn’t act on the petition. They instead reaffirmed a commitment to discussion of ideas.
The letter itself is pretty problematic, misrepresenting what it describes in several instances. Not only wasn’t the letter limited to members of the LSA, it wasn’t even limited to folks associated with a university: rather, it was limited to “everyone who identifies as a linguist.”
Which is fine–everyone should have a voice–but is significant because it shows that this letter is barely significant. Anyone who had any beef with Pinker at all could sign this letter as long as they’re okay identifying within this letter as a linguist. (If anyone is thinking of analogizing to trans identification, don’t–just don’t.)
The significance of this letter is mainly that it gives fuel to the drama around Cancel Culture. A superficial reading makes it look like Pinker’s being canceled. A more careful reading makes it look like he’s facing criticism by some people who would like to apply a mild public censure to him but failed to do so. Rather than showing how dangerous Cancel Culture is, we should look at it as example of what a nothingburger it is.
What I got from it is that it’s a catch 22. If you disagree with the ‘woke’ crowd then by definition your views are bigoted and you must be silenced. So it’s impossible to ever debate whether the views they espouse are correct or not.
I don’t know enough about the examples they showed (which they provided no information on other than tiny screenshots).
Like you, I have zero sympathy for Trump supporters. Unlike you, I looked at that tweet and could not dismiss out of hand the point he was making. Now, it’s possible the Trumphole lied and those are not actual tweets. It’s possible the person(s) they want to report to their employer did something thoroughly deplorable that rises to that level of action. But I don’t know either to be true. So to the extent that I see a concerted effort online to ruin the lively-hood of someone for some reason, I feel reluctant to rush to the conclusion that it’s warranted or that the Trumphole tweeting it out is just a whiner.
There’s not enough information about the tweets. Maybe they were justified, maybe not. This is a tactic that can be used for good or evil, like most tactics.
The plethora of debate about these views taking place on multiple platforms, including this one, demonstrates that this isn’t a valid concern, broadly speaking.
There used to be no social consequences for publicly expressing many or most bigoted and ignorant views. Now there is, though still not nearly enough in many cases (Trump should have never even gotten past the primary stage, much less gotten elected).
Sometimes the wrong targets are chosen, and “innocent” people might be harmed. But that just means we need to be careful about who we criticize and how we criticize them, not that we should refrain from criticizing, even harshly criticizing, those who promote bigoted and ignorant views.
Let’s look at a pretty violent example: without linking to actual tweets, I suspect we’ve all seen Facebook posts that suggest the author will gladly shoot any BLM protestor who comes to their town. So, for sake of discussion, let’s say the person tweeted or FBed a photo of himself holding an AR-15 and titled it, “Ready for BLM to come to Johnson City” (or wherever they live).
That person is using their free speech rights to intimidate and terrorize black people. Theyr’e clearly suggesting that if you protest in their town, they’ll murder you. Agreed? Even if it’s a joke, the joke is about their willingness to commit lethal violence.
“Cancel Culture” folks then use their free speech to try to deprive the person of their job.
If your reponse to this scenario is to come along and criticize the second group’s free speech use, without saying word one about the gun-toter’s free speech use, then I think your priorities are super fucked up.
Now, we don’t know what the tweets really said. But the fact that Wokal didn’t include them makes me think they were probably pretty bad: if they were mild and inoffensive, his own tweetstorm would only be strengthened by their inclusion. But let’s play with that.
Imagine, instead, the offending tweets said, “All lives matter,” and showed a picture of that white child who was murdered last week. And in response to that shitty exploitation of a child’s death to make a racist point, people tried to get the author fired.
In that case, I’d be a lot less sympathetic to the second group.
Actions matter.
I would say quite the opposite. The fact that this conversation is taking place on multiple platforms, it is very much a valid concern. One which you seem to blithely dismiss.