Intellectuals weigh in on Cancel Culture

CtevenSrowder

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I've a bit of an idea. Here's a clue, it's not crushing workers' movements, that's just brutal state authoritarianism. You're getting your views fed to you by cranks.



What is it with trans issues that gets you lads so worked up? I have very little understanding of the whole trans thing and tbh I don't really care much about it because it has no affect on my life.

Do you think it's ok for biological males to be in prison with women? Some of these males can be sex offenders and pre-op.

Do you think it's ok for biological males to compete in women's sports? Some of these males are pre-op.

Do you think it's ok for biological males to be awarded scholarships aimed at women, including sports scholarships?

If your answer is no, I don't think thats ok to any of these questions then you are a transphobe, anti-trans and a bigot. And that is the problem and why we get so 'worked up'.

Junkyard Tom

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Do you think it's ok for biological males to be in prison with women? Some of these males can be sex offenders and pre-op.

No.

Do you think it's ok for biological males to compete in women's sports? Some of these males are pre-op.

No.

Do you think it's ok for biological males to be awarded scholarships aimed at women, including sports scholarships?

No.

If your answer is no, I don't think thats ok to any of these questions then you are a transphobe, anti-trans and a bigot. And that is the problem and why we get so 'worked up'.

None of this has an affect on my life. I'd have to go looking for it to be bothered by it.

Tired Gardener

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's bonkers alright. It's reminiscent of generational sin. How do we solve it though?

Edit: Check this out, two years in the slammer for posting on twitter?



https://twitter.com/lapinesque/status/1280744878356520961?s=20

Wow, that is very bizarre. I haven't had chance to look in to it. However if what you have presented is true, it is the sort of crap that I think falls under the phrase 'cancel culture'. Using social media as a way to threaten and stifle opinion with real world consequences.

You ask 'How do we solve it?'.

I think that we need to start by allowing discourse, shifting the focus to look at things within there context and not reactionary gaze, realize that different opinions and outlooks shouldn't be punished, but rather challenged where they are hateful/derogative. Removing cancel culture from mob pressure would also be a good course of action. As Obama said, Life is messy and full of ambiguity...

https://youtu.be/qaHLd8de6nM

A more radical solution would be to just scrap social media, as it is just too polarising. We humans are very tribal (sports, politics, video consoles, music, film, art, etc) social media isn't at fault, but rather we are still to primative too use it without it magnifying our faults.

SlowMotion321

Tired Gardener wrote: »

A more radical solution would be to just scrap social media, as it is just too polarising. We humans are very tribal (sports, politics, video consoles, music, film, art, etc) social media isn't at fault, but rather we are still to primative too use it without it magnifying our faults.

I'm of an age that didn't have social media growing up and if it disappeared tomorrow I would probably hardly notice and certainly would get over it's loss PDQ, how many of the younger posters here could live without it and what impact would it's loss have on them (you) I wonder!

joe40

Tired Gardener wrote: »

How about the Conor Daly case. His dad said the N word on a radio show back in the 80's. Conor was born in 1991, went on to have a very successful racing career. In 2018 he lost a sponsorship due to what his dad said back in the 80's... So he was penalised for something way out of his control. This to me is a massive problem, as it is projecting the sin of the father on to the child.

I am an atheist, I find religion to be dogmatic, divisive, and against a lot of modern day sensibilities. However, as strongly as I feel against it, it would be wrong of me to deny someone their religious freedom. I am mature enough to understand and accept that even though I am deeply against something, for some it brings joy, comfort, and is a deep part of their identity.

The same is true of freedom of speech.

Universities should encourage discourse, the free flow of ideas, and challenge notions. Cancel culture stands opposed to those things

The Conor Daly case is shocking and there is no justification. Only heard about it from this post.

From my brief reading of the story it looks like it was the sponsor Eli Lilly that withdrew the sponsorship on their own. I didn't see evidence that they were reacting to public pressure. Maybe there was I don't know.

Either way terrible story, I wonder did he have any legal recourse.

2u2me

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I just question the idea that the right are supposed to be the defenders of free speech when so much of it doesn't seem to bothered by the waving of swastikas.

Look at every free speech rally worldwide for the last decade. Dominated by "right-wingers", from Maxime Bernier in Canada to Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson in the UK, Gert Wilders in the Netherlands, Deloros Cahill and Gemma here in Ireland. Many of those people wouldn't even call themselves right-wing, but they have been given that label by the media and your ilk.

Nobody was challenging when Dave Rubin was called right-wing either. All were happy to label him right wing.

So while the defenders of free speech may come from all sides; they have been incessantly labelled as 'right-wing' by the unscrupulous media. Probably because the ones wishing to cancel them were 'left-wing'. It fits a neat narrative.

It's something that has irked me over the years because as a kid I believed free speech was a principle of the left.

Look at this kid, Drew Pavlou, in Australia. He's become one of the world's most famous undergraduates because his university wanted him 'cancelled'.

"Allegations that he damaged the university's reputation by criticising its close relationship with China have been widely reported in Australian and foreign media outlets"

Pavlou, of the left himself, has been supported largely by right-wing groups in Australia, why is that?

"The right in particular has enthusiastically embraced Pavlou, who is, ironically, a follower of leftist writer Noam Chomsky. The attention includes a front page appearance this week in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, a favourable editorial in The Australian and numerous Sky News interviews. The Guardian and Washington Post have also covered the story."

*for context: in Australia I believe sky news is far more right-wing then what we know it as

Why does this keep happening over and over?

SlowMotion321

2u2me wrote: »

*for context: in Australia I believe sky news is far more right-wing then what we know it as

Is that possible?

Seriously though I always worry a bit when people start stressing right wing or left wing it's almost as if you can hear the ammunition being loaded, the very terms seem to be designed to get the backs up and bring the open minded shutters down! Rather than attacking someones argument cogently it seems easier to just cop out by dismissively calling them a looney leftie or right wing extremist!

Invidious

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What is it with trans issues that gets you lads so worked up? I have very little understanding of the whole trans thing and tbh I don't really care much about it because it has no affect on my life.

I'm glad you don't care because it doesn't affect you personally. Do you feel the same way about female genital mutilation in Africa or human-rights abuses in China?

Unfortunately, many people do have to care about the trans agenda because it affects them either directly or indirectly.

Schools are increasingly responding to trans activism by making toilets unisex — with the consequence that many girls are not drinking water during the day, or skipping school entirely while on their periods, because they feel unsafe and ashamed sharing toilets with boys. Because of this, many parents have been forced to care about an issue that directly affects their children's education.

Gender-neutral changing facilities, again installed partly to cater to the trans agenda, account for 90 percent of UK changing-room complaints about sexual assault, voyeurism, and harassment. Again, women and parents are forced to care about these increased risks.

Parents can watch their athletic daughters training hard for years, only to be beaten to the podium by male-bodied competitors claiming to identify as female. This has a direct impact on girls' morale, self-esteem, and sense of justice, not to mention their chances of winning athletic scholarships.

Male-bodied sex offenders are being incarcerated in women's prisons because they have gone through a legal process to have their sex registered as female. If you were a woman forced to share cells, bathrooms, etc., with a convicted male-bodied sex offender, I bet you'd start caring fairly quickly.

There are numerous other instances where people who care about safety, dignity, and fairness are forced to speak up about letting biological males identify as female and be legally treated as if they were female.

wildeside

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What is it with trans issues that gets you lads so worked up? I have very little understanding of the whole trans thing and tbh I don't really care much about it because it has no affect on my life.

Maybe some people care about the consequences for young children who might be (mis)lead down a path of irreparable biological and psychological damage because of ideological zealotry. Do you not care one iota about young people just because you think it doesn't affect you? Anyway, the welfare of children has a wider societal impact now and into the future and so does affect you and everyone that lives in our society.



Or maybe it's the vested interest groups attempting to redefine the very nature of reality that you should be concerned about. Attempting to redefine reality itself to fit a political agenda should scare any reasonable person.

One eyed Jack

Invidious wrote: »

Unfortunately, many people do have to care about the trans agenda because it affects them either directly or indirectly.

Nonsense. People ‘care’ because they want to, not because they have to.

Invidious wrote: »

There are numerous other instances where people who care about safety, dignity, and fairness are forced to speak up about letting biological males identify as female and be legally treated as if they were female.

People aren’t being forced to speak up about anything? You make up nonsense about other people because you want to, not because you have to, and certainly not because there’s any truth to what you’re saying. That’s why more people simply don’t care, because for all your raising alarms and trying to incite moral panic, people simply aren’t stupid enough as you need them to be in order to promote your own agenda.

wildeside wrote: »

Or maybe it's the vested interest groups attempting to redefine the very nature of reality that you should be concerned about. Attempting to redefine reality itself to fit a political agenda should scare any reasonable person.

By your own standards, it’s no wonder you’re scared and trying to convince other people they should be too :pac:

Invidious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nonsense. People ‘care’ because they want to, not because they have to.

Parents have a moral and legal obligation to care about the well-being of their children. If girls aren't attending school while on their periods because schools have made their toilets unisex to appease trans activists, parents have to speak up about the impact of those policies on their daughters' education.

You make up nonsense about other people because you want to, not because you have to, and certainly not because there’s any truth to what you’re saying.

Please indicate where I have made up nonsense about anyone.

joe40

Invidious wrote: »

I'm glad you don't care because it doesn't affect you personally. Do you feel the same way about female genital mutilation in Africa or human-rights abuses in China?

Unfortunately, many people do have to care about the trans agenda because it affects them either directly or indirectly.

Schools are increasingly responding to trans activism by making toilets unisex — with the consequence that many girls are not drinking water during the day, or skipping school entirely while on their periods, because they feel unsafe and ashamed sharing toilets with boys. Because of this, many parents have been forced to care about an issue that directly affects their children's education.

Gender-neutral changing facilities, again installed partly to cater to the trans agenda, account for 90 percent of UK changing-room complaints about sexual assault, voyeurism, and harassment. Again, women and parents are forced to care about these increased risks.

Parents can watch their athletic daughters training hard for years, only to be beaten to the podium by male-bodied competitors claiming to identify as female. This has a direct impact on girls' morale, self-esteem, and sense of justice, not to mention their chances of winning athletic scholarships.

Male-bodied sex offenders are being incarcerated in women's prisons because they have gone through a legal process to have their sex registered as female. If you were a woman forced to share cells, bathrooms, etc., with a convicted male-bodied sex offender, I bet you'd start caring fairly quickly.

There are numerous other instances where people who care about safety, dignity, and fairness are forced to speak up about letting biological males identify as female and be legally treated as if they were female.

Well I work in a large secondary school and I can tell you that is not an issue, where I work anyway. There isn't even talk about it.
I also have 2 teenagers and again this is not an issue in their lives.

Dyr

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I've a bit of an idea. Here's a clue, it's not crushing workers' movements, that's just brutal state authoritarianism. You're getting your views fed to you by cranks.



What is it with trans issues that gets you lads so worked up? I have very little understanding of the whole trans thing and tbh I don't really care much about it because it has no affect on my life.

I often wonder do the far right look at every ****show their ideology caused and claim "that wasnt real fascism"

Or is it just the far left do that

SlowMotion321

Invidious wrote: »

Parents have a moral and legal obligation to care about the well-being of their children. If girls aren't attending school while on their periods because schools have made their toilets unisex to appease trans activists, parents have to speak up about the impact of those policies on their daughters' education.



Please indicate where I have made up nonsense about anyone.

Can you please quote specific examples and statistics on this?

Invidious

joe40 wrote: »

Well I work in a large secondary school and I can tell you that is not an issue, where I work anyway.

It's not an issue in the specific school where you work, therefore it's not an issue?

You should be aware that a number of soon-to-be-built secondary schools are seeking Department of Education permission to install gender-neutral toilets. The Department is also considering proposals for installing gender-neutral toilets in newly constructed primary schools.

It's already an issue in many other countries, and it will soon become one in Ireland as well.

One eyed Jack

Invidious wrote: »

Parents have a moral and legal obligation to care about the well-being of their children.

That’s not the same point as your post was making earlier. There’s no question that parents have a moral and legal obligation to care about the well-being of their own children. Parents do not have any moral or legal obligation to care about the well-being of other parents children. That’s something a person takes voluntarily on themselves.

Invidious wrote: »

Please indicate where I have made up nonsense about anyone.

Well the idea of this “trans agenda” for starters, or the idea that only people who agree with you care about fairness and dignity and safety. As just one example, schools were never making toilets unisex as a response to trans activism, look at the latest thread on schools and you’ll see that the majority of people are in favour of non sex-segregated schools.

Unisex bathrooms have been a thing in workplaces and clubs for decades now. Unisex changing facilities were never about the “trans agenda”, they are simply a matter of resourcing, and that 90% statistic is misrepresented as suggesting that unisex changing rooms are responsible for 90% of complaints of inappropriate sexual behaviour in changing rooms? Utter nonsense.

The rest of it’s been done to death on numerous other threads already, but yeah, you’re being silenced or cancelled or whatever other nonsense you need people to believe so you can play the victim of the “trans agenda” :rolleyes:

Bonniedog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

people’s attempts to redefine reality itself in order to fit a political agenda.

That is the nub of it, is it not?

You cannot just "redefine reality" to suit any political agenda.

Males of any species not just being able on a subjective basis to decide that they are females is part of reality. Indeed it is one of the defining biological bases of all life.

Political attempts to enforce the irrationality of race and/or class led to catastrophe in the 20th century. Do we really need another such irrationality wedded to violence?

One eyed Jack

Bonniedog wrote: »

That is the nub of it, is it not?

You cannot just "redefine reality" to suit any political agenda.

Males of any species not just being able on a subjective basis to decide that they are females is part of reality. Indeed it is one of the defining biological bases of all life.

Political attempts to enforce the irrationality of race and/or class led to catastrophe in the 20th century. Do we really need another such irrationality wedded to violence?

Well, you can, and if you can convince enough people of this new reality then bobs your uncle and fannys your aunt, or the other way round if you prefer (doesn’t matter what they think), and you’re justified in using violence against people whom you determine are irrational if they don’t share your views. They don’t cancel you, you cancel them, amirite? Sorry, you’re right.

Invidious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There’s no question that parents have a moral and legal obligation to care about the well-being of their own children.

Exactly. And, by extension, they have an obligation to care about government policies that affect those children. The number of people who are parents of school-age children constitutes a significant chunk of the population.

Well the idea of this “trans agenda” for starters, or the idea that only people who agree with you care about fairness and dignity and safety.

I must have missed your concern for the dignity of girls who don't want to share school bathrooms with boys. Or for the safety of female prisoners when male-bodied sex offenders are put in the same facilities. Or for fairness on behalf of talented female athletes who lose out to male-bodied competitors.

As just one example, schools were never making toilets unisex as a response to trans activism

Oh, really?

Five soon-to-be built secondary schools have sought permission from the Department of Education to install gender neutral toilets for students, the Sunday Independent can reveal.

It can also be revealed that the department is also considering design proposals for new primary schools which would see the introduction of toilet facilities which would not be for any specific gender.

The move follows a growing national debate around transgender issues.

A spokesperson said the department had received "at least" five requests from schools seeking to introduce gender neutral toilets.

But keep on denying reality if you wish. No doubt everyone will accept that you are right and the national media is wrong.

Bonniedog

Well Jack, you have just given a reasonable definition of totalitarianism there!

I trust you do not share that view?

BTW, you might use violence to force people to accept irrationality - which the Nazis and Stalinists did - but you can't actually change reality.

There was no master race or class that bears the key to history. Just as men cannot decide they are women for some psychological reason and then expect society to cater to their condition at the expense of others. Invidious and others have listed some of these as they impact on girls and women from schools, in work and in sport.

Tired Gardener

Bonniedog wrote: »

Well Jack, you have just given a reasonable definition of totalitarianism there!

I trust you do not share that view?

BTW, you might use violence to force people to accept irrationality - which the Nazis and Stalinists did - but you can't actually change reality.

There was no master race or class that bears the key to history. Just as men cannot decide they are women for some psychological reason and then expect society to cater to their condition at the expense of others. Invidious and others have listed some of these as they impact on girls and women from schools, in work and in sport.

Just to add, also in politics. In the UK Labour had a role that was established to help addresses the imbalance between men and women in politics. It was a role reserved for women.

It was recently awarded to a transgender woman, who I think was at the time 22 years old.

Edit, found an article about it, caused a bit of an backlash.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-43962349

One eyed Jack

Invidious wrote: »

Exactly. And, by extension, they have an obligation to care about government policies that affect those children. The number of people who are parents of school-age children constitutes a significant chunk of the population.

Don’t be sneaky. There’s nothing by extension at all in people caring about how government policies will affect their own children. The number of people who are parents of school age children doesn’t mean anything unless you have the opinions of each and every one of those parents, and I’m guessing you don’t. It doesn’t matter how much of the population they are in any case as they still don’t dictate Government policy. If they did, that homeless woman and her children sleeping in their car would be shoved into a Poorhouse by now... ehh, “family hub” I believe is the modern euphemism.

Invidious wrote: »

I must have missed your concern for the dignity of girls who don't want to share school bathrooms with boys. Or for the safety of female prisoners when male-bodied sex offenders are put in the same facilities. Or for fairness on behalf of talented female athletes who lose out to male-bodied competitors.

You didn’t miss it, I didn’t express any concern for them. They get on fine for the most part. I’m not going to pretend to be concerned when I don’t see any reason to be concerned.

Invidious wrote: »

Oh, really?

But keep on denying reality if you wish. No doubt everyone will accept that you are right and the national media is wrong.

Yes really. Do you have any idea how long it has taken for any schools to be built in this country? Children for decades have had to put up with being taught in shìtty cold and damp prefabs, seems now is as good a time as any to make proper use of resources and not have the costs of building new schools rising like a children’s hospital!

Invidious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You didn’t miss it, I didn’t express any concern for them. They get on fine for the most part.

Great, thanks for the clarification.

No concern for girls who feel ashamed and unsafe using unisex school toilets. Sure they'll get on fine crossing their legs and staying home while on their periods.

No concern for female athletes who lose out to male-bodied competitors. Sure they'll get on fine without those medals and scholarships.

No concern for female inmates when male-bodied sex offenders are incarcerated in women's prisons. Sure they'll get on fine even if they get assaulted or raped.

One eyed Jack

Invidious wrote: »

Great, thanks for the clarification.

No concern for girls who feel ashamed and unsafe using unisex school toilets. Sure they'll get on fine crossing their legs and staying home while on their periods.

No concern for female athletes who lose out to male-bodied competitors. Sure they'll get on fine without those medals and scholarships.

No concern for female inmates when male-bodied sex offenders are incarcerated in women's prisons. Sure they'll get on fine even if they get assaulted or raped.

Sure why would I need to be concerned for them when I know you’re throwing every resource at your disposal at addressing these issues which are of such great concern to you personally?

You’re on that, right?

shatners bassoon

Invidious wrote: »

Great, thanks for the clarification.

No concern for girls who feel ashamed and unsafe using unisex school toilets. Sure they'll get on fine crossing their legs and staying home while on their periods.

No concern for female athletes who lose out to male-bodied competitors. Sure they'll get on fine without those medals and scholarships.

No concern for female inmates when male-bodied sex offenders are incarcerated in women's prisons. Sure they'll get on fine even if they get assaulted or raped.

What are the actual statistics in relation to these issues?

Tired Gardener

One eyed Jack wrote: »

.

The rest of it’s been done to death on numerous other threads already, but yeah, you’re being silenced or cancelled or whatever other nonsense you need people to believe so you can play the victim of the “trans agenda” :rolleyes:

Much like how David Reimer was a victim of the Trans agenda. John Money forced upon him from birth a female identify as he believes that gender are learnt and not innate. All his critics he labelled as being sexist. Just like how now those who raise questions or concerns get labelled. It is an easy way to discredit any argument, by projecting your opponent as being phobic towards a group of people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

It makes for a chilling read. It was forced transgender done to support John Money's claim, it resulted in 2 suicides.

Now, we may not be seeing forced transgender, however. If we can accept the notion that social media can and does influence and sway people's political views, can it not also be argued that it can also do the same for children's identify? Children after all are quite susceptible and still developing their sense of identity. How else can we explain ROGD?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy

Bonniedog

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Now, we may not be seeing forced transgender,

If we can accept the notion that social media can and does influence and sway people's political views, can it not also be argued that it can also do the same for children's identify? Children after all are quite susceptible and still developing their sense of identity. How else can we explain ROGD?

There is already the kind of social and even parental pressure you refer to, especially where one or both of parents are not the biological parent.

As I said before on Rowling thread I have heard relatives of mine talk about a young boy as being "trans," with the implication that he might have to transition at some stage!

I'm talking about people who have absorbed this bullcr@p through popular culture. When I opined that there was no way anyone could predict what the young chap may do as he grows up and that it was certainly no-one's business to be pigeon holing him at such an age, i was told I should "live and let live."

Indeed...

One eyed Jack

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Much like how David Reimer was a victim of the Trans agenda. John Money forced upon him from birth a female identify as he believes that gender are learnt and not innate. All his critics he labelled as being sexist. Just like how now those who raise questions or concerns get labelled. It is an easy way to discredit any argument, by projecting your opponent as being phobic towards a group of people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

It makes for a chilling read. It was forced transgender done to support John Money's claim, it resulted in 2 suicides.

Now, we may not be seeing forced transgender, however. If we can accept the notion that social media can and does influence and sway people's political views, can it not also be argued that it can also do the same for children's identify? Children after all are quite susceptible and still developing their sense of identity. How else can we explain ROGD?

Ahh mate there was an awful lot wrong with that one individual fcukwit. You’re hardly suggesting that one person’s malfeasance is representative of much are you?

It sure could be argued that children are influenced by everything, how legitimate that argument is though is up to anyone whether or not the argument has any merit. How do we explain ROGD? By self-selection bias for that survey of the parents of course! As that’s exactly how that study was conducted to adhere to the authors own agenda. It was hardly the stuff of rigorous scientific research!

JohnnyFlash

Oh dear, this was actually an interesting thread. Anyways.

JohnnyFlash

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Oh dear, this was actually an interesting thread. Anyways.

Certain topics only need to be whispered, and they take over threads.:D