I think the idea is to place the internet into the cultural context of the 1960s. Of course, one would expect that, were that the case, there would have to be tighter content control, to “protect community standards”. And quite frankly, inserting the internet into the sixties would undeniably alter sixties culture.
Less of a rehash, and more of a recap for those who did not read that thread.
Isn’t it rather strange that JKR’s sardonic tweet about menstruation has garnered so much scrutiny and opprobrium, but there nothing like this when men talk explicitly about men’s health issues? Like, just now I searched on Twitter and found all kinds of threads about prostate screening. Where is the offenderati demanding that the word “men” be excised from these threads? What about the erasure of men who don’t have prostates; why are no tears shed for them? There is no activist mob threatening to boycott companies for referring to males as “men” rather than “individuals with penises”. We’re only seeing this agenda directed at people using the word woman. That is rather curious, ain’t it?
My problem with “cancel culture” isn’t that I think it’s inherently harmful that millions of people now have the means to air their opinions online. The problem is that this culture combined with irrationality, groupthink, and virtue signaling is making us extremely vulnerable to disinformation and manipulation. People aren’t asking the questions they should be asking themselves before jumping on the bandwagon. They are just jumping in first and asking questions…never.
I think I’ve seen more sexism in the last two months than I’ve seen my entire life. This is not an exaggeration. It’s like something unworldly has hijacked our collective consciousness and sense of scale. This isn’t “cancel culture” doing this; it’s something else. Salem Witch trial craziness, maybe.
Stolen from Twitter:
It’s only cancel culture if it comes from the Cancelle region of France. Otherwise it’s just sparkling consequences.
I just enjoying the irony, here. Don’t mind me.
In order to be similar, you’d have to have someone say, “There’s already a term for people with prostates. Mun, Mon, Mub?”
If I were a person with a prostate who was not a man, I’d feel fairly well attacked by that as well.
Is there such a person that has said something like that? If so, point me in their direction and we’ll see if we can adjust that view as well.
If not, then your entire paragraph was utterly irrelevant.
There is no mob threatening to boycott companies for referring to females as “women” rather than as “people who menstruate”. Anywhere, at all.
There is no one asking that “women” be excised from any threads, anywhere, at all, so accusations of hypocrisy that “men” are not falls flat and false.
What this “agenda” is being directed at is someone who claims that if you menstruate, you must be a woman.
So, not really curious, not in the slightest. Not unless you can find something even vaguely similar.
I would ask how exactly it is that you know this. People are a bunch of individuals, and if a bunch of individuals all agree with eachother, then you may be tempted to think “hive mind” or “group think”, when what it could just be is that they have all come to the same informed opinion.
What questions are you asking to make sure that you are not just following on the bandwagon being led by some very powerful and influential people?
I’ve not been all the same places that you have been, and I’m obviously not as sensitive to it, but I’m not sure what it is that you are talking about here. I’m curious as to where you have seen this, and if it is because it has become more prevalent, it has been pointed out more, or if you are going looking for it.
If that was the reason it still doesn’t seem bad enough to fire someone over.
You’re right. Agreeing with the religious right, or Hitler for that matter, on one issue doesn’t mean anything. Hitler was a vegetarian, for example; that doesn’t make vegetarianism wrong.
Besides, you didn’t actually say you wanted to burn her books, or stop schools buying them. Those are IMO wrong, but not because the right do them. Rather the right is wrong when they endorse that kind of censorship, and so is the left if they do the same.
Bad enough? Would you prefer something more proportional, like…
There probably are things people could tweet that I’d agree they should be fired for, but none of the ones I’ve seen are anywhere close.
I’ve never heard of this series, but it seems as though there are a whole lot of authors that would love to get in on it.
It’s a bit of an honor to get to write for this series.
It’s not her stories or her series. Not her characters or even plots.
She is welcome to try her hand at writing her own novels on her own time.
Her twitter feed is full of some pretty hateful stuff. I haven’t gone through it all, but what I have seen is certainly not something I would want from a public figure representing my company.
That they moved to an author that is less inflammatory seems pretty reasonable to me. I don’t see why they should have been required to continue to support her and give her a platform, if what she is publicly advocating for is against the culture that the publisher wants to have around this book series.
Once again, there is a wide difference between being fired from a job that is your only possible source of income, and being removed from a position of honor.
If you are being honored, you should try to stay above reproach. When you are being honored, your words and deeds reflect on those who honor you.
She was given a platform that many would kill to have, and she used it to spread hate. I have no problem with the publisher taking her platform back.
You are making my point for me. There is no concerted effort to remove “man” from subjects exclusive to male health issues. Only “woman” and “female” have become politicized in this way. Missing in the outrage directed at JKR is any acknowledgement of this sexist disparity.
Neither JKR’s tweet nor the headline she tweeted about occurred in a vacuum. The tabooification of female-specific language, all in the name of trans inclusivity, has been catching on like wildfire in the last couple of years. The implications of this trend haven’t been openly discussed; people wanting to bring attention to the negative ramifications that this might have on female advocacy efforts, screening awareness, and health literacy have been dismissed and attacked. So yeah, when you have all of this going on, you will see a quip about it on Twitter.
Responding to the quip with criticism is fine, especially if a fair hearing is given to the other side. But characterizing it as transphobic hate speech that merits a full bore campaign to end someone’s career over? And then turning a deaf ear to the concerns behind the quip? This is a witch burning mindset.
Is there such a person that has said something like that? If so, point me in their direction and we’ll see if we can adjust that view as well.
See that? The part in bold? This is the reactionary mindlessness that is hurting the reputation of progressives right now. It’s very witch burny and very dangerous. Rather than stepping back and actually thinking about whether a problem actually exists, you are advertising intent to find the next thing to outrage over. “Adjust that view” seems rather sinister given this context.
No one’s view is “adjusted” by this stuff. People’s views stay the same; they just become cowed into acting like they’ve changed. The burning of “witches” only serves as an a example for other “witches”. This is what extortion is.
It may be something, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t extortion. Intimidation maybe, which is as horrible, granted. I
Where in real life have you seen this sexism?
How do they know if they are being “cancelled” if they don’t read the comments?
When Youtube de-monetises their channel. Or when their friends tell them they’ve been inundated with tweets demanding they disown them and apologise for ever associating with them. Or when companies who’ve been sponsoring them tell them they no longer want to be associated. Or when they are doxxed and their employer receives emails demanding they be fired. Etc.
Some deserve it. Some don’t. This is a tool that can and will be used for good or for evil. It’s good (and long overdue) when sites tell David Duke he’s no longer welcome to use their platforms. It’s not so good if they do it for someone who didn’t do anything wrong. I’m for it when it’s used against people like Duke, and against it when used against people who haven’t done anything wrong. There’s tons of room in between, and that’s worth discussing. But this is a tool that pretty much everyone is okay with in some circumstances.
I’m not sure what your point is. Feels like you went and threw down some goal posts right in front of it though.
What people are upset with JKR about is that she dismissed the existence of anyone who menstruates who is not a woman. You seem to have an extra objection towards her that no one else has had.
What I have seen a whole lot of politicization is about people with penises. If you have a penis, but are not a man, then you are not welcome anywhere. But that has nothing to do with what she said, or anything to with this thread.
It was not a quip, it was a dismissive statement. An organization phrased something in order to be inclusive, and she insulted them and anyone they were trying to include. She chose to step in and offer her opinion, completely unprompted and unasked.
It’s not a reactionary mindset to say that if someone denies the existence of people who do exist, then that view should be adjusted.
I have stepped back, and thought about what the problem is, what harm it does, and whether or not it exists. The problem is that people dismiss the humanity of trans people, it causes real harm to them, and it absolutely is a thing, as can be seen by the very tweet we are discussing.
What would be mindless would be to take a phrase out of context, bold it, attribute a different meaning to it, and then excoriate someone for it.
I was not in any way advertising my intent to find the next thing to be outraged over, I am not outraged in the first place. I pointed out that what she said was harmful. You said that there are those who would say exactly the same thing, but opposite, and I replied that if you actually had an example of those, then I would be consistent in calling them out for the harm that they too cause.
Though, I will admit that I am sinister, as that original meaning of that word was “left handed”.
All I can gather from what you have said is that we are bad people if we call out speech that we see as problematic.
Sure it is. Go back a bit, and someone who was trans would be burned as a witch, or worse. Views have adjusted to where many of us don’t discriminate against them at all, and most of the rest are able to tolerate and keep their views about the way that others choose to live their lives to themselves.
JKR was not one of those. She could not sit by and let people live their lives, she had to inject herself into the conversation in order to point out that she doesn’t believe that men who menstruate exist.
That is a view point that I would not mind seeing changed. That you so vehemently disagree only serves as an example of why those views need to be changed.
You tube will demonetize at the drop of a hat. Cody’s Lab is very non-political, and yet gets demonetized all the time for all sorts of bullshit reasons. Still not being canceled.
Do you have an example of a youtuber who would fit your description? Not saying that it doesn’t exist, just curious as to what the actual circumstances were.