I read your post and think the best way to respond was to point you to the opinion piece below. Don’t have the energy to go line by line with you or anyone else tonight. If you are really interested in understand rather than mindless reacting, I trust you will read this. It sums up everything essential regarding the issue we’re discussing.
Although the author was deplatformed by cancel culture, I believe history will be treating him kindly for not letting bullies “adjust” him into silence.
That sounds like straight capitalism to me. Not “cancel culture”
As a “tool”, it’s a blunt instrument, not a scalpel. Moving forward in these discussions, let’s just assume that the bulk of the concern expressed in these discussions is for those who arguably do not or may not deserve it. We don’t need to include David Duke as a qualifier about those who do deserve it. Nobody is suggesting David Duke or Bill Cosby has been treated unfairly.
Could we also assume that “canceling” means more than angry tweets directed at the person?
Sure. If we can also assume that an angry tweet is the end of it.
Capitalism, they say, is the world’s second oldest profession.
I thought it was farming?
In any event, it looks like “cancel culture” is companies using financial analysis to determine if they should fire someone or not.
Thank you for showing me where you are coming from.
Though nothing of that article has any relevance to this thread, it does explain the mindset of those who feel the need to interject it into every subject.
While I am sure that, as a man, I have any number of micro aggressions of misogyny that I have picked up from being raised and steeped in a patriarchal society, accusing me of sexism because I’m not talking about how JKR didn’t talk about men in her tweet is more than just a little off topic.
That’s just it. The only examples given are those who arguably did deserve the “canceling” that they got.
I haven’t seen any examples of people being harmed, just losing platforms provided by companies or organizations that choose not to endorse and support the statements that their associate chose to make in public.
The small damage that could be said to have been inflicted on them, which is arguable, in that often “canceling” backfires by bringing something to more people’s attention, has not been demonstrated to have been punitive or out of proportion. If canceling is attempted and fails, the cancelee often benefits, as JKR did when the fundamentalists and other highly religious folk provided her with free advertising.
The “Million moms” try to cancel anything fun, and so provide nothing more than a platform to see what is interesting enough to raise their hackles. Is anyone condemning them? I hope not, they have provided us with a great service.
The examples given are those who are powerful and influential. The reason that the criticism of them is so intense is because of that. They are powerful and influential. They are putting the weight of their power and influence behind the positions that they advocate. Me being some random guy on a messageboard, I have no more influence than I can earn with my words. If I revealed to you that I was famous author Neil Gaimon, then suddenly, I bet you would consider my arguments with more weight.
If there is any goal to “canceling”, it is to remove the platform that is legitimatizing and amplifying an opinion that is objectionable. It is not an attempt to shut it up, it is only an attempt to force it to compete on an even playing ground.
The words that JKR has said have been harmful, and she has not taken them back or apologized. Her mocking tone legitimizes mocking trans people, it delegitimizes their entire existence. Real people can receive real harm because of what she chose to interject into the public sphere. Cutting down her platform in response, or at least attempting to, is not an unreasonable reaction.
If JKR just straight up said, “Trans people should not be respected or accepted in society.” How much damage would that do? People would believe her, and follow her without thinking, because of the platform that she is given. I am not saying that this is what she believes or what she would say, just giving an example of the power and danger of giving someone that much social power.
With great power comes great responsibility, and so, I do think that they should take responsibility for the consequences of their words.
Examples of anyone losing their ability to earn a living have not been forthcoming. If I could see examples of everyday Joe losing everything because of some joke in poor taste, then I could see where the actual concern is coming from.
I will go ahead and also say that I do not consider death threats and such to be a part of cancel culture, if only in a no true Scotsmen way, and if you object to that distinction, and insist that it is, then I will say that it is a part that I will categorically condemn and not defend. Any defenses are solely of criticism and financial support of people choosing to advocate their views in public.
Profanity laced tirades on twitter or facebook or youtube are a different matter. I don’t see the good they do, but they don’t really do any harm either. You don’t even have to listen to them, and if it made someone feel good to get something off their chest, then it’s a net win. I don’t really defend them, but I can’t bring myself to categorically condemn them either. Depends on vehemence and persistence, but if actually crosses over to threats of physical harm, then is entirely unacceptable.
…just a content warning: the author that YWTF has linked to is Graham Linehan, who is openly and blatantly transphobic, and has been banned from Twitter for “repeated violations of (their) rules against hateful conduct and platform manipulation.” Linehan is an example of someone who has been “cancelled” for repeatedly expressing hateful, disgusting things, and its a good thing he’s gone. History will remember Linehan as someone who once had a couple of funny TV shows then turned into a hateful bigot.
Did you listen to the Ted talk, or read the article I linked? Cause it sure doesn’t sound like it. Did you read about the knitting purity spiral linked to in the previous thread? Did you watch the ContraPoints video on cancel culture? If you only bother to read about the famous victims, then of course you’re going to think it’s all about the powerful and influential.
It’s absolutely is an attempt to shut it up. The abuse Rowling got is a lesson to other women: you’re not Rowling, keep quiet or else. The open letter about Steven Pinker doesn’t shut Pinker up, it’s the untenured, unproven academics who will be watching their words. It’s the unpowerful and uninfluential who really lose their voice due to cancel culture.
You can’t respect other people very much, to think they would be so unthinkingly swayed by what a celebrity says. Do you believe the only way to convince people your views are correct is to make sure they never hear the alternative? Cause that sure sounds like what you’re saying.
As for JKR having said anything harmful, the contrast between what she wrote and the violent, misogynistic abuse she received in return is obvious to anyone who looks. Yet the latter barely merits a mention, or is dismissed altogether. There’s some very screwy priorities on display here.
Thanks for demonstrating the very problem we’re talking about in this thread. Rather than refuting what Linehan is saying with facts and well-reasoned arguments, you’re engaging in mudslinging. Nothing in that piece is transphobic. It’s about the willful ignorance that liberals are maintaining right now.
The right is constantly condemned for its capacity to ignore and deflect the wrong sitting right in front of its face. But the left is proving to be even worse at this. All I can do is keep pointing this out in the hope that the SDMB doesn’t become an echo chamber. It’s probably too late, though.
…thanks for demonstrating that “cancel culture” really isn’t a problem.
Rather than making your own arguments in this thread, you admitted that you didn’t “have the energy to go line by line with you or anyone else tonight” and you lazily posted a link to the opinions of a transphobe instead.
So excuse me for not “refuting Linehan’s arguments” when you couldn’t even be bothered making them yourself in this thread. If you aren’t prepared to do the work then why should I?
There isn’t a danger of that. We already know that the SDMB openly allows transphobic arguments to be made here. You are in no danger of being cancelled. No need to pre-emptively play the victim.
Any other sites/people you want us to stay away from, BB? Cause so far, reading them has been both informative and enlightening. It’s definitely helped fight my ignorance to see what these cancelled people are actually saying rather than relying on their opponents’ biased interpretation.
…I don’t recall suggesting you stay away from anyone here in this thread. I provided a Content Warning, an entirely reasonable thing to do considering that YWTF was linking to the personal blog of someone who preaches hate. His words were so hateful that Twitter not only took his blue-tick away they then banned him. Do you know how hard it is to get a blue tick banned from Twitter?
Oddly enough, this doesn’t surprise me at all.
I’ve read plenty of things that Linehan has written. He isn’t an expert. He is biased, doesn’t listen, is hateful, and he is cruel. And he is openly transphobic, so lets stop pretending that he is any sort of authority here. He’s an arsehole with an opinion, nothing more. And it isn’t “cancel culture” to point that out.
For those who don’t care to click on BB’s links, Linehan is guilty of committing the atrocity of saying transwomen are not women. He believes it is misogynistic to give men the right to call themselves women. As someone with a large following, he was deplatformed to limit his influence. Not because his tweets crossed into unspeakable territory.
When regular everyday people see progressives losing their shit over “Men are not women, tho”, they don’t end up siding with the cancel crusaders. They side with the people condemned for stating opinions that only last year would be seen as boringly uncontroversial. At this rate, cancel culture is going to end up “canceling” liberals; the left is steady destroying its own credibility. Watch the UK’s Labor Party eating itself over “women have cervixes” right now. It feels like it should be satire, but it’s more like a horror show.
How about you describe in your own words, rather then send people off on an excursion to try to figure out your point.
Give an example, or not. Don’t ask people to do your work for you.
Not a felony.
Just very hateful.
No one is saying lock him up. We are just saying that he is a despicable person, and those who follow him are either naive or despicable themselves.
Back to relate this to the thread at hand. One of the reasons that I left the thread about JKR was because I was tired of any words that I uttered being taken out of content and then twisted to prove that I was actually a woman hater.
If that sort of thing is cancel culture, then thank you for bringing it up as an example. If it isn’t then it is irrelevant.
In either case, I am tired of the game, so I’m out.
Have fun telling every man that you meet how much he hates women. See how far that gets you in life.
The irony, of course, being that one of the starting premises of that thread was that anyone who questioned “trans ideology” would immediately be labelled a bigot, which was followed by over 2000 posts where the only people getting accused of bigotry were people standing up for trans rights.
Yes, we understand that you and BB think someone is a “despicable person” for expressing the belief that transwomen aren’t women. Yes, we understand you see this as a hateful opinion.
What you don’t seem to understand is that calling someone despicable convinces no one that a person is actually despicable. What it does is makes you look bad. Ineffectual name-calling is the basest form of dealing with differing viewpoints. It signals a lack of rationality and perspective.
How is it hateful to believe transwomen are transwomen, rather than women? Why is it wrong to believe reproductive anatomy sex matters more than gender identity when deciding who is a man or woman? If someone believes it’s misogynistic to allow men to identify into womanhood, where is the well-reasoned argument that refutes this?
This is what’s lacking in cancel culture. Everyone is just supposed to take it as a given that certain opinions are pure scum and hop on the bandwagon of outrage. It’s one thing when the wrongness of these opinions is self-evident, but when it’s not? And when these opinions are widely held? You’re vilifying millions of people and then expecting people to take you seriously.
He is also guilty of claming that acknowledging transwomen are women is “an existential threat to women and girls”. Which is nonsense. His examples of the danger are entirely devoid of transwomen harming women or girls. He’s really dedicated to this idea and doesn’t have ONE example to show us? Really?