That cite was on the trans topic, which I’ve stepped away from after inadvertently causing offense in the other thread. I don’t make any characterization at all of that one.
Leave the trans issue aside. Was the film director marginalized for an unpopular view she held as some point in her past? Was she fairly treated as a result and contextually punished?
Are you kidding? I’m advocating for speech in response to speech. Social consequences are a form of speech. Unlike you, apparently, I think this kind of speech can be appropriate sometimes. I want the world to be rhetorically intolerant of intolerance. Do you really want to live in a world in which people are afraid to boycott or criticize bigotry?
Yes, they should be rhetorically ground into dust. Mocked, criticized, boycotted, etc. No threats, and no violence, but all the different forms of speech should be utilized when fighting bigotry and fascism.
What part of this is a problem for you? Which type of speech do you think should be restricted?
I have no idea. She says she was, so maybe she was. All I know is what she said - I don’t know the context, or the perspective of others, including her critics, etc.
I am actually disappointed at this level of moral and intellectual cowardice from a poster like you. I doubt you would assume this non-comital position if this was in context of a conversation about #MeToo/BelieveWomen.
Here’s a recent example of canceling in medicine, but I suspect most posters here will agree with the canceling:
A doctor published a paper criticising affirmative action, and a few months later Twitter noticed and blew it up. He was removed from his position as director of the electrophysiology fellowship program at the Heart and Vascular Institute at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and his paper was picked apart and eventually retracted.
Maybe it was a bad paper. I don’t know. But it makes me wonder how many bad papers are published that do support the ‘woke’ consensus, but we never realise because they don’t receive the same scrutiny. After all, the paper had been out for several months without issue. This only happened due to a twitter storm.
#MeToo is about the treatment of victims of sexual assault and harassment, who have historically been mistreated just for speaking out. There’s no such history I’m aware of for people who claim they’ve been canceled.
If you want to make a case about Sundar, let’s see some cites. Who criticized her, and what did they say? What opportunities did she lose? What did she say from the beginning that sparked criticism? If it’s all about trans issues, maybe it fits the other thread better. But I don’t see how I can make a judgment with just that one cite.
…are you cancelling iiandyiii? For merely suggesting that perhaps there is another side to this story? And you have the gall to invoke #belivewomen, a hashtag dedicated to survivors of sexual harassment and assault?
I don’t know but I BelieveSundar and her claims until such time as I learn otherwise.
…why?
Why not?
If you know her to be a liar, then provide evidence of same and I will gladly change my view.
If this is a problem, it’s a tiny fraction of the problem of how the right tries to shut down speech, and a tiny fraction of the problem of actual bigotry and ignorance, and aside from “let’s try to be a bit more careful and accurate”, which is totally fine with me, I haven’t seen any suggestion on how to combat this relatively small problem that doesn’t directly or indirectly aid the right’s bigotry, ignorance, and moral corruption.
We’re not nearly as far as many appear to think from the moral atrocities of the early and mid 20th centuries. It will require ongoing vigilance to make sure it doesn’t happen again. And the enemy is mostly the same - the bigots, fundamentalists, and white supremacists, and their wealthy and powerful enablers. The real enemy is still the Nazis and their philosophical descendants. Which include massive chunks of the American right today.
…you stated you were disappointed in the level of moral and intellectual cowardice of iiandyiii for not jumping to conclusions (as you have here) and being willing and open to listening to the other side. Don’t you think your position here is kind of problematic? We have vague allegations that we can’t check. She admits to having made tweets that hold gender critical views. I’ve done a bit of research and I can’t find anything to back up what she has said. So don’t you think the way you called iiandyiii out before is just a bit over-dramatic? Don’t you owe them an apology?
I agree that it’s a smaller problem than systemic racism and willful ignorance. But we are in the OP about cancel culture and the emerging problem of bullying in social media with respect to unpopular ideas, NOT racist and bigoted ideology. I know it’s tempting and easy to make it about the latter but this isn’t about that. But here it is again… a lecture about how many far worse things have happened and are happening in the world right now. If this is such a trivial issue, why are you in here working so hard to dismiss it? Surely there are greater injustices to fight elsewhere.
But since you asked, the way to combat this relatively small problem is to acknowledge it and to do our part in discouraging others from shutting down those who are not racists or bigots but at worst mistaken or simply hold a different point of view about which there may be no consensus.
Another way to say this - right now, black people are still being brutalized by law enforcement, women are still being groped and assaulted with no consequences, trans people are still dying from mental health and institutional mistreatment, immigrant families are still being brutalized, so many children still have no chance at a decent life, etc… and perhaps some advocates on the right side of these issues, who for maybe the first time in history actually have some measure of influence, occasionally pick the wrong targets, or occasionally are a bit too harsh in legitimate criticism, or otherwise make very rare mistakes. So okay, maybe this is a small but real problem.
But blowing this out of proportion is directly aiding Trump and allies, so don’t that. If a conservative whines about cancelation, rhetorically tear them apart. If a whining “moderate” like Harris, Pinker, or Sullivan whines about being criticized, ignore them or eviscerate them, but don’t parrot their bullshit and help the worst of the worst.
Isn’t that the point of it being bullying - a show of force and implied potential violence — to this nice, quiet family neighborhood that is minding their own business, just trying to live life.
“Join us or else?”
If @iiandyiiii feels that I owe him an apology then he can say so and he and I will come to an amicable resolution about it. Not sure why you feel the need to be involved in this matter.
What is “shutting down”? Suppose I’m arranging a conference, and I want to invite prominent people on whatever field. And suppose, because I want to fight bigotry, I don’t invite some scientist who said “actually the Bell Curve made some good points” because that’s a really dumb thing to say and I don’t want him at my conference. Did I do something wrong? Or am I obligated to invite this asshole?
Look, I get it. Yours is an easier argument to make if you contrast it with far bigger extant problems. I’m asking you not to do that because it’s not necessary and a bit disingenuous. But I see you’re not interested in doing so but would rather equate Harris, Pinker and Sullivan with fascists and their enablers.
I’m not going to ask for an apology. You made it personal, for some reason, so I tried to ignore that part. But big deal - we’re just wasting time on the internet here. I’m passionate about my beliefs, but I have no illusion that spouting off here is doing anything more than, at best, making a liberal slightly more liberal.