Well, since you know about conferences, then you know that the reason you invite Lawrence Krauss, Francis Collins, etc… and not some no-doubt smart and accomplished member of a recognized minority on their team is because Krauss and Collins have name recognition and established credentials.
You personally have an agenda. It’s not a bad agenda. I don’t deny that there is a lack of diversity. But you see, this is what you chose to make this conversation about. When it’s not about that. It’s about whether or not recognized scientists should be excluded because they espoused some wrong ideas while making a highly notable contribution to science and have been thus recognized by their peers.
I explained this exhaustively in the other thread. If you don’t know by now that checking your government ID is how society verifies the sex of individuals that come into question, then God help me, I don’t know what more can convince you.
I wonder if a mod wants to go ahead and merge this thread into the JK Rowling thread, so we don’t have two threads taken over by the same ugly nonsense.
…ah. I see. You are one of the gatekeepers, determined to keep diverse speakers off the agenda. So we were all correct earlier in the thread. I thought so. Did you ever stop to think why its mainly white men who have “name recognition”? And how are you determining what an “established credential” is for speaking at a conference?
And yes, you personally have an agenda as well.
No, my agenda isn’t bad. Your one though unfortunately is.
Why yes, yes I did. We’ve been talking about it since we first started discussing conferences in this thread.
I beg to differ.
Who the fuck is talking about “wrong ideas?”
I asked you “why do we need to invite Collins and Watson?” That question still stands. There are thousands of conferences (prior to covid) held all over the world. Collins and Watson weren’t invited to speak at nearly all of them. Why should I invite them to speak at mine? I said nothing at all about anything they may or may not have said. I said I probably couldn’t afford them. I said that there would be marginalised voices that could speak about mapping the human genome and if they were available I would book them. When did I say I wouldn’t book them because of their “wrong ideas?”
Far from it. This thread and the other one has convinced me that at least some progressives support the idea of cancel culture. Free exchange of ideas is at the bedrock of any good society… so I don’t know what to do, politically speaking.
Transwomen should use the women’s restroom if that is what they feel comfortable doing. Cis-men should not. At least in the common way that restrooms are configured today.
Why not? What is the underlying rationale for discriminating by gender identity but not biological sex when it comes to which room a person relieves themselves or undresses in?
You don’t have to answer this question in this thread but it would great if you could answer it in the other one.
That’s certainly what Trump wants you to believe - that progressives, or even “cancelling” bigots, has anything to do with repressing free speech. You’re the one that appears to have a problem with responding to speech with speech, not those who disagree with you.
Me thinking that there is some unreasonable throttling of speech that is going on in liberal and progressive circles may be right and it may be wrong.
But it is laughable to insinuate that, 'QuickSilver is completely different from Trump – yet thinks very much the same as Trump’. Laughable, hyperbolic and frankly, lazy.
Maybe if some notion of “purity” is more important to you than beating the fascists and fascist-adjacent.
But I recognize that my approach isn’t for everyone, and doesn’t work for everyone. That’s fine. But it works for some. Fights against injustice have historically needed multiple types of rhetoric (and action, for that matter). Malcolm X was important to the Civil Rights movement – maybe as much so as MLK Jr. Bernie’s approach is just as important as Biden’s, even if Biden ultimately won the primary.