Intellectuals weigh in on Cancel Culture

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

Maybe not bad faith but you must admit you did not give all relevant information to explain the protests.

I had never heard of this story and from your post I thought the protests were extreme for a silly joke. Her other comments show a much more sinister element. Maybe you were not aware of them, I'm not sure.

I'd never heard of it either... but we took different things from his post. I assumed the focus was on the cancel culture being applied to the husband for what the wife had written. He'd been busy with his work when she had tweeted, and by the time, he'd finished, he was already getting attacked.

Modern society has made great statements about women being individuals and that they should be treated as such, but here we have a husband being judged for the behavior of his wife?

Or did I completely misunderstand the situation (I haven't read more than the info supplied on this thread)?

Brian?

2u2me wrote: »

It's a rejection of modern ways of thinking that came out of the enlightenment. Critical thinking, science, empiricism in favour of subjectivism, relativism, a general distrust of theories, a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.

Stephen Hicks has a lot of work available online for free about post-modernism. E.g. this lecture does a great job of explaining it.

I know what post modernism is. I’m constantly seeing it applied to everything though. It seems like a buzz word/phrase that’s used incorrectly as a pejorative. Much like “radical”. There’s nothing inherently bad about being radical.

Invidious

Deleted User wrote: »

If I talk about it publicly, I can face aggression from those who want every aspect of the trans movements to be accepted. I'm not "allowed" to be selective in what I support/disagree with. Instead, there is the demand to be completly accepting, and that I must accept immediately. There's no grace period to allow people to adjust slowly, and get comfortable with the situation. Change has to happen now, and many who disagree are alienated/attacked.

Exactly. It's the all-or-nothing attitude of the trans rights campaigners that most bothers moderate people. As far as the activists are concerned, either you are 100% with them or you're a transphobe. There is no middle ground.

wildeside

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem I find is that many people would be close to what you say above, but they're uncomfortable with just how vague the whole thing is. It's incredibly complicated. More than it should be really. We have multiple movements being promoted as a single group, so to accept one means accepting all of those groups.

For example, I'm against Gender change for minors. However, that's considered by many to be transphobic. Just as while, I'm supportive of rights for people who undergo full transgender surgery (or drug change) to change their gender... I'm concerned about those who do partial or no actual physical changes, and their place in society (especially in how it relates to safe spaces for women/girls).

If I talk about it publicly, I can face aggression from those who want every aspect of the trans movements to be accepted. I'm not "allowed" to be selective in what I support/disagree with. Instead, there is the demand to be completly accepting, and that I must accept immediately. There's no grace period to allow people to adjust slowly, and get comfortable with the situation. Change has to happen now, and many who disagree are alienated/attacked.

And therein lies the problem with the progressive orthodoxy, there's no room for nuance. You're either with us (an ally) or against us (an enemy).

Modern progressivism does not want a real "conversation" because that leaves the ideology open to question.

If any philosophy/ideology is truly confident and self-assured in its beliefs it would invite criticism wholesale and bat away faulty logic and reasoning with joyful ease.

But sadly the complete opposite is true. I can no longer tell the difference between many modern progressives (and I'm a leftie) and the ideological religious zealots they so often denounce.

Tired Gardener

Brian? wrote: »

I know what post modernism is. I’m constantly seeing it applied to everything though. It seems like a buzz word/phrase that’s used incorrectly as a pejorative. Much like “radical”. There’s nothing inherently bad about being radical.

postmodernism
/pəʊstˈmɒdəˌnɪz(ə)m/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a late 20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism, which represents a departure from modernism and is characterized by the self-conscious use of earlier styles and conventions, a mixing of different artistic styles and media, and a general distrust of theories.

I think it is the part in bold that makes postmodernism slapped onto a lot of things. It is that part that I am a bit on the fence with about it, seems like it has given or is used by people
as a way to give credence to reject anything that they don't like or agree with. For example anyone who rejects objective truths in place of subjective truths.

ancapailldorcha

Tired Gardener wrote: »

postmodernism
/pəʊstˈmɒdəˌnɪz(ə)m/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a late 20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism, which represents a departure from modernism and is characterized by the self-conscious use of earlier styles and conventions, a mixing of different artistic styles and media, and a general distrust of theories.

I think it is the part in bold that makes postmodernism slapped onto a lot of things. It is that part that I am a bit on the fence with about it, seems like it has given or is used by people
as a way to give credence to reject anything that they don't like or agree with. For example anyone who rejects objective truths in place of subjective truths.

The distrust thing sounds more like the right wing people who use phrases like "fake news" and "MSM" than progressives IMO.

I have no idea what postmodernism actually is and I get the impression that the word has been bandied about the extent that it's culturally meaningless beyond providing a nominal target for outrage.

fly_agaric

2u2me wrote: »

Well it did have it roots in France and it has had it's influence in Europe also.

Although I think you're right we're starting to see cancel culture from the US right now also. I'd say it's more a reaction to what was going on in the left for a long time. Obviously this was always going to happen.
I saw this case of Claira Janover recently.

I didn't click on that video as I don't have the time at the moment and I don't like inviting youtube "pamphlets" into my mind without looking a bit at where they come from and who is talking first...

I wasn't really referring to the "cancel culture" as it is being called now driven by social media witch-hunts. Rather that,

a rejection of modern ways of thinking that came out of the enlightenment. Critical thinking, science, empiricism in favour of subjectivism, relativism, a general distrust of theories, a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.

is IMO a good summary of the mindset of the US right who are praised as being in opposition to this "cancel culture" of the US left (unless and until they can bully & cancel someone they don't agree with of course!)

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Yes, in some respects, both sides are quite similar. Take a look at any of the trans threads to see the complete abandonment of any concept of scientific rigour.

However, I'd argue that the above has existed within elements of the right for longer, its a newer concept amongst the left, and it culturally has far more power here in Europe.

I'd agree, yes. The left is generally more on the side of science and reason, but they have their blindspots esp. around human biology (evidence that emerges from genetic research which shows importance of "nature" vs "nurture" can be a target for attack because it conflicts with left wing ideological precepts. It is also perceived as "dangerous knowledge" imo because racists and bigots will twist it to support their own arguments)

Bonniedog

Tired Gardener wrote: »

anyone who rejects objective truths in place of subjective truths.

That is as good a summary as any.

Which is what is at issue in the whole transphobia/Rowling business.

That a man cannot just decide to be a woman is an objective, scientifically proven fact/truth.

No amount of pandering to the feelings of a tiny number of people with a psychological or even psychiatric condition trumps that.

As for the intellectual origins of post modernism within the left, check out Marcuse. Far from concealing his objectives, he went to the trouble of writing an essay entitled "Repressive tolerance" in 1969 which supported the suppressing of non leftist opinion.

The sinister part of that was it gave intellectual backing for the disruption of university lectures that had begun in Germany and France several years before.

Angela Davis was one of Marcuse's acolytes and carried the contagion into American universities.

Invidious

Brian? wrote: »

I know what post modernism is. I’m constantly seeing it applied to everything though. It seems like a buzz word/phrase that’s used incorrectly as a pejorative. Much like “radical”. There’s nothing inherently bad about being radical.

In its rejection of so-called essentialist or foundationalist thinking, postmodern theory lies at the core of the transgender moment. It supplies the basis for the identitarian gospel that people are what they identify as, despite all evidence to the contrary. It allows them to claim that a trans woman actually is a woman — as opposed to a man who believes he is a woman. It takes the argument to the level of ontological assertion, albeit at the expense of demanding that adherents profess that black is white or 2+2=5.

Tired Gardener

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The distrust thing sounds more like the right wing people who use phrases like "fake news" and "MSM" than progressives IMO.

I have no idea what postmodernism actually is and I get the impression that the word has been bandied about the extent that it's culturally meaningless beyond providing a nominal target for outrage.

I've dated progressives who've used it to argue against things.

Postmodernism is far too vague to belong exclusively to one side of the political spectrum.

2u2me

fly_agaric wrote: »

I didn't click on that video as I don't have the time at the moment and I don't like inviting youtube "pamphlets" into my mind without looking a bit at where they come from and who is talking first...

Well it's from Viva Frei(Youtuber- scary!) a former litigator from Montreal, described on wikipedia as "Freiheit classifies the political stance he takes on his channel as non-partisan"

I believe it provides a good synopsis of the insidiousness of 'cancel culture' and how social media contributes to that. It shows a Harvard graduate, Claira Janover, who got 'cancelled' from her job at Deloitte.

She posted a 'tik tok' in favour of BLM which could be construed as an agressive threat. A mistake that would have had little consequences 10 years ago could well now have ruined her life.
In todays day and age mistakes take on a life of their own; they exist in perpetuity.

Tired Gardener

fly_agaric wrote: »

The left is generally more on the side of science and reason, but they have their blindspots esp. around human biology (evidence that emerges from genetic research which shows importance of "nature" vs "nurture" can be a target for attack because it conflicts with left wing ideological precepts. It is also perceived as "dangerous knowledge" imo because racists and bigots will twist it to support their own arguments)

This has been my experience, I am Left wing (not as radical as I used to be mind) and have always been at odds with people on the same political spectrum as me due to this blindspot.

I can't recall who said it, but. Have ideas, as they can change and adapt, beliefs can not change or adapt, they are too rigid.

fly_agaric

2u2me wrote: »

Well it's from Viva Frei(Youtuber- scary!) a former litigator from Montreal, described on wikipedia as "Freiheit classifies the political stance he takes on his channel as non-partisan.

Thanks for background. It was nothing personal, and nothing to do with that particular video or what it is about. I don't really like youtube political videos on principle no matter what they arguing and consider just a bit before I just "click" & watch one. You jest but youtube, tiktok, social media in general and their power to "influence" is sort of scary.

Silentcorner

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The distrust thing sounds more like the right wing people who use phrases like "fake news" and "MSM" than progressives IMO.

I have no idea what postmodernism actually is and I get the impression that the word has been bandied about the extent that it's culturally meaningless beyond providing a nominal target for outrage.

And why do you think that is...keeping with the Trump administration, as it is the most obvious example of just how far down the gutter media has gone, on July 4th he gave what was a very good speech in Mount Rushmore, a National Monument....recognising a lot of what is being discussed on this thread.

It was reported as celebrating "independence day" for white men, at a monument to white men, two of whom were slave owners on land robbed from native indians.

Which is all well and good...but they sang a completely different tune when Bernie Sanders and Barak Obama visited the same monument.

This persistent race and gender baiting rhetoric by media is damaging public discourse and can lead our shared society into some very dark times if it is allowed to continue....we have witnessed an administration that has been attacked and undermined by "journalists" every single day since the very first day in office, starting with the fantasy of Russian collusion!!!

What has been most obvious to a growing amount of people is the complete collapse in standards in education, media and culture in recent years, and the deep divisions that have occurred as a consequence....it hasn't hit here as much yet but it is on the way.

Brian?

I am quite busy in work, but this thread has ascended into an actual debate. I love it. I apologise to those who replied to me and I haven't replied to, I won't have time until later. Keep up the good work!

Brian?

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps because the execution of those freedoms were being selectively applied by University authorities, and their own campus rules which sometimes placed the rights of one group over the rights of another?

US Academia and campus rulings regarding feminist, SJW, racial groups often placed their rights above the rights of others. Trump signing the order was a step towards reducing the power of the groups seeking to censor those who didn't want to fully accept such movements.

But how does an executive order solve this when the law already exists to solve it?

My contention is that it doesn't, if there were abuses of civil rights they will still occur. If people are willing to defy the constitution, why wouldn't they defy an EO?

Dog and pony show is my conclusion.

ancapailldorcha

Silentcorner wrote: »

And why do you think that is...

This persistent race and gender baiting rhetoric by media is damaging public discourse and can lead our shared society into some very dark times if it is allowed to continue....we have witnessed an administration that has been attacked and undermined by "journalists" every single day since the very first day in office, starting with the fantasy of Russian collusion!!!

Holding the president to account is exactly what the media is for. Trump supporters can't hack this as they've tied themselves to such an irredemable human being hence the "fake news" maxim. It absolves them of thought and effort as they can just wave away views and opinions they don't like. Checks and balances prevent Trump from going further.

Silentcorner wrote: »

What has been most obvious to a growing amount of people is the complete collapse in standards in education, media and culture in recent years, and the deep divisions that have occurred as a consequence....it hasn't hit here as much yet but it is on the way.

By what metric have education standards collapsed?

2u2me

fly_agaric wrote: »

Thanks for background. It was nothing personal, and nothing to do with that particular video or what it is about. I don't really like youtube political videos on principle no matter what they arguing and consider just a bit before I just "click" & watch one. You jest but youtube, tiktok, social media in general and their power to "influence" is sort of scary.

I just wish people were a tad more specific. It's kind of a kin to saying 'books are bad and they can mislead' which is kind of true :pac:

So while there are probably billions of hours of material uploaded to youtube every year mostly toxic, outrage-baiting, idiotic stunts, stupid opinions etc.. etc..

There are also some lost lectures by Richard Feynman, courses from just about every university in the world, and the entire series of QI available for free :pac:

Bonniedog

Brian? wrote: »

I am quite busy in work, but this thread has ascended into an actual debate. I love it. I apologise to those who replied to me and I haven't replied to, I won't have time until later. Keep up the good work!

We promise to be good while you are away.

Or maybe report you

kowloon

emo72 wrote: »

I on the the other hand think Peterson is great. Never heard a bad word out of his mouth.

You have now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFzVAI2DBZY

Invidious

Bonniedog wrote: »

That a man cannot just decide to be a woman is an objective, scientifically proven fact/truth.

That's why, in order to argue the logical absurdity that a man can become a woman just by how s/he identifies, they first have to dismantle the pesky notion of objective truth.

What does it mean to be a "woman"? Is it a biological reality? A lived cultural experience from girlhood? An identity? Many women would argue that it's all of the above — but trans activists ride roughshod over the complexities of womanhood and feminine acculturation when they argue that anyone who identifies as a woman, regardless of biological sex, actually is a woman.

Many people are coerced into accepting this silliness because of fear of reprisal. But people shouldn't have to worry about losing their jobs because they don't believe that a person with a penis is an actual woman.

Silentcorner

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Holding the president to account is exactly what the media is for. Trump supporters can't hack this as they've tied themselves to such an irredemable human being hence the "fake news" maxim. It absolves them of thought and effort as they can just wave away views and opinions they don't like. Checks and balances prevent Trump from going further.



By what metric have education standards collapsed?

Holding the president to account is one thing, completely contorting every word out of his mouth is a completely different issue, we all can recognise how polarised the media in the US has become, editing news clips to completely misrepresent what the man actually said is well past the line of holding the man to account.

I recommend watching Kayleigh McEnany* for her ability to consistently embarrass the most hostile press pack ever witnessed with such poise as an example of how desperate they have become!!

Education Standards are hard to quantify but I'll give you a few examples.

The massive college debt bubble in the US ($1.5 trillion at the last count) which suggests that the degrees or not in demand and/or are worthless.

The fact that the humanities departments are indoctrinating young minds (young women in particular who own most of that college debt) in social sciences using ideology that is completely untested and unchallenged.

Then there was this little beauty... https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/10/10/grievance-studies-academia-fake-feminist-hypatia-mein-kampf-racism-column/1575219002/

Only last week we had a professor in the UK publish an article that asserted that buildings are sexist.

The 3rd level institutions in the US have had to be shamed into allowing free speech on their campuses.

Who would send their daughter to a 3rd level institute that knowing she was going to take on $20k of debt that she can never walk away from for a degree that is most likely worthless.

*The fact that K McEnany is absolutely gorgeous with the most beautiful eyes I've ever seen has had no bearing on my perception of her....I promise!!

Tired Gardener

Bonniedog wrote: »

That is as good a summary as any.

Which is what is at issue in the whole transphobia/Rowling business.

That a man cannot just decide to be a woman is an objective, scientifically proven fact/truth.

No amount of pandering to the feelings of a tiny number of people with a psychological or even psychiatric condition trumps that.

As for the intellectual origins of post modernism within the left, check out Marcuse. Far from concealing his objectives, he went to the trouble of writing an essay entitled "Repressive tolerance" in 1969 which supported the suppressing of non leftist opinion.

The sinister part of that was it gave intellectual backing for the disruption of university lectures that had begun in Germany and France several years before.

Angela Davis was one of Marcuse's acolytes and carried the contagion into American universities.

One big annoyance I have with it all is that in principle postmodernism is a useful tool, as it encourages people to think and weigh up what they are taking in. Which is important in validating the empirical evidence against blind faith.

For example if I said water is wet It would be more beneficial for someone to not just believe what I have said to be true based upon my words, but to see for themselves.

What is crazy to see is how such a useful tool can be so easily twisted.

ancapailldorcha

US education fees being exorbitant does not mean that education standards are slipping.

That USA today piece looks like a blog post. If you've actual scientific evidence, I feel like I would have seen it by now.

Free speech comes with accountability. This is what Trump and his acolytes despise. I'm not going to go searching for a video that you've not even bothered to link. Frankly, this sort of ownage culture is a big part of the problem with political discourse in the US.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

But how does an executive order solve this when the law already exists to solve it?

My contention is that it doesn't, if there were abuses of civil rights they will still occur. If people are willing to defy the constitution, why wouldn't they defy an EO?

Dog and pony show is my conclusion.

Because it raises awareness? It says that we should take notice of how "woke" attitudes have taken control over many university campuses (along with their executive bodies) and are applying double standards to people's right,

I don't believe it was an attempt to actually fix the problems going on. It was a gesture to those resisting the SJW/Woke crowd, that they're not completely alone and unnoticed.

Bonniedog

I can't find it now but someone said something to effect that left was always on the side of science.

Really? Well they never read Engels' embarrassing nonsense which sought to shoehorn all sorts of actual science into "scientific socialism."

Nor are they familiar with Soviet science which had as one of its heroes Lysenko who thought that man made changes to plants and animals would be inherited over a number of generations. Geneticists who said this was medieval nonsense were sent to camps and murdered.

Likewise, the Soviets denounced the theory of relativity, quantum physics and the Big Bang (originated by a Belgian priest Lemaitre) as "bourgeois." The Nazis denounced the same theories as "Jewish physics."!


Same totalitarian attack on science and truth underlies transgenderism. Thankfully, its political advocates do not have the political power to do as they would like to and murder any dissenting voices. So they have to be content with censorship.

fly_agaric

2u2me wrote: »

I just wish people were a tad more specific. It's kind of a kin to saying 'books are bad and they can mislead' which is kind of true :pac:

So while there are probably billions of hours of material uploaded to youtube every year mostly toxic, outrage-baiting, idiotic stunts, stupid opinions etc.. etc..

There are also some lost lectures by Richard Feynman, courses from just about every university in the world, and the entire series of QI available for free :pac:

Fair enough - that is true. They (youtube, tiktok, suppose social media platforms in general) are very powerful tools + they are causing disruption, most of it negative. They've set a bomb off inside democracies/societies that allow very free use of them, maybe similar to how printing press shook things up (?? am not enough of a history expert to be on firm ground making that comparison) Anyway, am dragging things off topic so will stop.

jimgoose

Invidious wrote: »

...people shouldn't have to worry about losing their jobs because they don't believe that a person with a penis is an actual woman.

It is absurd and abominable. But it seems to me that the ridiculous "kill the unbeliever!!" over-reaction to anyone piping up with something like "hang on a minute, if you've a mickey you couldn't be a woman!" stems from them knowing full well that the whole thing is horseshit.

ancapailldorcha

Bonniedog wrote: »

I can't find it now but someone said something to effect that left was always on the side of science.

Really? Well they never read Engels' embarrassing nonsense which sought to shoehorn all sorts of actual science into "scientific socialism."

Nor are they familiar with Soviet science which had as one of its heroes Lysenko who thought that man made changes to plants and animals would be inherited over a number of generations. Geneticists who said this was medieval nonsense were sent to camps and murdered.

Likewise, the Soviets denounced the theory of relativity, quantum physics and the Big Bang (originated by a Belgian priest Lemaitre) as "bourgeois." The Nazis denounced the same theories as "Jewish physics."!


Same totalitarian attack on science and truth underlies transgenderism. Thankfully, its political advocates do not have the political power to do as they would like to and murder any dissenting voices. So they have to be content with censorship.

The old "the left is one big amorphous blob" trope.

Why are the right Holocaust deniers and Nazis?

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

US education fees being exorbitant does not mean that education standards are slipping.

That USA today piece looks like a blog post. If you've actual scientific evidence, I feel like I would have seen it by now.

Free speech comes with accountability. This is what Trump and his acolytes despise. I'm not going to go searching for a video that you've not even bothered to link. Frankly, this sort of ownage culture is a big part of the problem with political discourse in the US.

You point it all in the direction of Trump and his cronies or supporters, but honestly, I see the same behavior coming from his opponents. American media and politics have both become a cesspit with a general lack of respect towards anyone who doesn't agree with their beliefs.

Lastly, Trump while overusing the idea of fake news, wasn't completely wrong. There has been a campaign to create distrust towards Trump, which contained fake news stories. Agenda pieces with the sole aim to discredit him.. something that wouldn't have been even remotely common twenty years ago. The responsibility for that happening doesn't rest solely on Trump. It rests a lot on the people who have been trying to take him down.