…are you trying to cancel me now? This is an open discussion, I can opine in any way I want. The fact remains you have jumped to conclusions and attacked someone who didn’t jump to conclusions and only wanted more information.
The problems are directly related. Fighting for social justice is a really good and worthy thing, and it’s impossible to separate out a few possible relatively minor errors in the fight for justice from the broader effort.
It’s your conference. Invite who you want. But if addition to saying something dumb about the Bell Curve this person has something smart to say, perhaps he would be a worthwhile participant?
I’m sure there are plenty of smart people who haven’t said something so dumb. Further, there are probably tons of women and people of color in the field who have been mostly ignored and not included in these big conferences, so I’d rather invite them. Especially if they haven’t said really dumb things.
EDIT: More relevant for this thread - did I cancel that person by not inviting them? Is it wrong if they stop getting invitations, or have an invitation rescinded because they said something dumb?
You must chill.
…I’m just trying to understand your definition of “cancel” here. So a “yes” or a “no” would be of much more assistance than an instruction to “chill.”
No, I have no interest in cancelling you or iiandyiiii.
“cancel” is not my term. I’m using it because it’s shorthand for what we are discussing in this thread. If you don’t like “cancel”, suggest an alternative and I’ll use that. Whatever is going to move things forward.
Then I have bad news, my friend - you just brought “no interest in canceling” to a cancel fight! So look out, you just got canceled! No more prestigious events and free hotel rooms for you!
Here I will cop out with: it depends on why s/he is being uninvited.
Because of this really dumb thing they said. And because I want a more diverse panel than last year. Both of these are fine reasons, IMO.
Looks like it’s time for another letter to Harper’s.
That’s fine. But you should know that if you insist on such pristine standards, you are going to run out of interesting, qualified speakers faster than you might imagine.
So is THIS your strong example? It looks to me like you’re operating according to the theory that a bunch of shitty examples is as persuasive as a single good example–why else would you offer so many shitty examples? But maybe this is the good one, the one that you think really demonstrates the power and danger of cancel culture.
Lemme know if THIS is the one you want to hang your hat on, and if it is, I’ll dig into it. Otherwise, I’ll figure it’s another shitty example that won’t hold up to scrutiny and dismiss it.
…is this something you really believe? That there aren’t enough interesting, qualified, marginalised voices out there that haven’t said “dumb things” that you are going to run out of speakers?
I doubt it. In my experience, in most fields there are tons of great contributors who’ve been mostly ignored beyond their own little piece, because they lacked connections or didn’t care about self promotion. And a big chunk of those are women and people of color, who had to claw their way in on hard work and talent, because they didn’t have those connections in the good ol boy network.
We need more voices pushing against the mob who thinks throwing around labels (fascist, racist, bigot, scum, etc) are persuasive substitutes for facts, logic and evidence. More calls for restraint. More people saying “hey dude, take it down a thousand. You’re making us all look unhinged.”
We need more voices who are willing to question the party line. We need more people willing to point out hypocrisy where it appears. We need less jumping to conclusions and more asking of questions before taking sides. (I still don’t believe more that 25% of the people venting spleen over JKR’s essay actually read the thing; most are regurgitating talking points from twenty different bloggers.)
We need more of us to be conscious of our own biases and blindspots and the biases and blindspots of people who are leading the charge against a certain viewpoint.
It actually doesn’t have to be much. Bullies feel empowered to go to the max because when polarization occurs, the bullies only surround themselves with other bullies to form a sort of protective echo chamber of righteousness. They can’t hear the people they are attacking or their defenders; they feel as if everyone believes as they do. The only people who can get through to them are the people who have access to the inside of the chamber. Someone has to be the guy that says “Hey I think he/she’s wrong but calling this Nazism/genocide/hate speech/etc is too much”.
I think this is good stuff. The difference is that I also think calling the bigots Nazis is good stuff too. Even playing off each other can be good stuff. I think hyperbole can be very useful, just like restraint can be useful. All of these various rhetorical approaches can be useful and have a place.
Sigh. You have to be sure what you’re diagnosing as Nazi bigotry is actually that, though. I’m seriously having doubts some of you are proficient enough to do this accurately, and it’s people like me who are going to ultimately pay the price.
I’m going to be that guy right now and say “hey dude, take it down a thousand. You’re making us all look unhinged.”
Feel free to call me out! Just please be specific. I think I’m actually really careful with my language, and I invite you or anyone to find posts in which you think I’m careless or otherwise inaccurate.
Oh, sure. But again, if in 2020 you’re spending more time chastising people on the left for calling out incipient fascism than you’re spending calling out the incipient fascists, your priorities are all kinds of jacked.
This thread has dozens of examples pulled from finger-waggy moderates and Daily Mail- and Fox News-style bloggers. The more leftists let this sort of nonsense shut them up, the more the right’s speech suppression campaign succeeds.
So yeah, absolutely: be careful in all the statements you make, speak truthfully, and be careful that you’re accusing people of real things. Obv. But don’t be fooled that Cancel Culture is anything like as serious a free speech issue as the manufacture of the Cancel Culture Crisis is.