Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Intellectuals weigh in on Cancel Culture

Options
1…1112141617…23

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    Tired Gardener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Tired Gardener


    JohnnyFlash wrote: »
    Oh dear, this was actually an interesting thread. Anyways.

    I'll hold my hand up, I shouldn't have engaged with that topic in this thread.

    My bad.


  • Options
    #393
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Quantum Erasure wrote: »
    what ever happened Kevin Myers?

    He got old and retired?


  • Options
    #394
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »

    Political science may not be a real science but psychology is.

    Whaat???? No. Just no.

    Psychology is NOT a science. It's just a hobby.
    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    Psychology is the not hardest of sciences but it is a science and it has some the most sophisticated maths because humans are so complex and unpredictable. So the point is, psychology has technical jargon and it requires it.

    It uses a lot of convoluted mathematics, certainly. Because it deals with the real world and an infinite number of variables. So any models that it attempts to construct require a bewildering array of complex (in the general sense of the word) mathematics.

    But at the end of the day, all the mathematics in the world cannot help psychology predict with any great accuracy how the "systems" it studies (ie people) will react in any given situation. It is a probability based social science and the best definition of a social scientist, in general, and a psychologist in particular is "Somebody who will always have to explain tomorrow why the predictions they made yesterday did not come true today"

    This may sound a lot like a standard statement of the classical Scientific Method. Observe-create hypothesis-test against a number of possible scenarios. Even physical scientists have to go through this process, part of which is coming up with explanations for why the results did not match predictions but with physical scientists, once they identify WHY their predictions did not come true they can modify their theories before eventually arriving at definitive unchanging laws.


    Apply heat to water it will boil.
    Remove contaminants (as much as possible) from an operating theatre and inhibit infection.

    By contrast a psychologist can never predict with anything like 100% accuracy what will be any one person's reaction to a particular event and will therefore ALWAYS have to come up with reasons why the prediction failed.

    Treat people kindly and they will become kinder people. Well, mostly but there are always exceptions.
    How do you spot them?
    Well there are a number of indicators that give a general idea of the sort of people that are likely to be sociopaths but you can't tell just by looking at them.
    Are these tests definitive?
    Of course not. But if somebody passes the test and still turns out to be a bit of a **** I'll be able to construct plausible scenarios AFTER the event to suggest why.

    Mama Soprano got it absolutely right in the first series when she heard her son was seeing a psychiatrist (Not the same, granted, as a psychologist but closely related)
    "But that's all nonsense. It's only a racket for the Jews!"

    Leaving aside the ethno-religious slur, she's right.


  • Options
    #395
    wildeside
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭wildeside


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


    Are you saying I'm trying to redefine reality? I don't see how. My position is one that values objective truths particularly when it comes to the welfare of vulnerable children. What is your position exactly?


  • Options
    #396
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    Whaat???? No. Just no.

    Psychology is NOT a science. It's just a hobby.



    It uses a lot of convoluted mathematics, certainly. Because it deals with the real world and an infinite number of variables. So any models that it attempts to construct require a bewildering array of complex (in the general sense of the word) mathematics.

    But at the end of the day, all the mathematics in the world cannot help psychology predict with any great accuracy how the "systems" it studies (ie people) will react in any given situation. It is a probability based social science and the best definition of a social scientist, in general, and a psychologist in particular is "Somebody who will always have to explain tomorrow why the predictions they made yesterday did not come true today"

    This may sound a lot like a standard statement of the classical Scientific Method. Observe-create hypothesis-test against a number of possible scenarios. Even physical scientists have to go through this process, part of which is coming up with explanations for why the results did not match predictions but with physical scientists, once they identify WHY their predictions did not come true they can modify their theories before eventually arriving at definitive unchanging laws.


    Apply heat to water it will boil.
    Remove contaminants (as much as possible) from an operating theatre and inhibit infection.

    By contrast a psychologist can never predict with anything like 100% accuracy what will be any one person's reaction to a particular event and will therefore ALWAYS have to come up with reasons why the prediction failed.

    Treat people kindly and they will become kinder people. Well, mostly but there are always exceptions.
    How do you spot them?
    Well there are a number of indicators that give a general idea of the sort of people that are likely to be sociopaths but you can't tell just by looking at them.
    Are these tests definitive?
    Of course not. But if somebody passes the test and still turns out to be a bit of a **** I'll be able to construct plausible scenarios AFTER the event to suggest why.

    Mama Soprano got it absolutely right in the first series when she heard her son was seeing a psychiatrist (Not the same, granted, as a psychologist but closely related)
    "But that's all nonsense. It's only a racket for the Jews!"

    Leaving aside the ethno-religious slur, she's right.

    A psychiatrist is a medical doctor treating mental illness.
    100 of suicides and life limiting conditions are very real.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    2u2me
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭2u2me


    joe40 wrote: »
    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.

    I remember when I was a kid I was told all sorts of crazy things in school here in Ireland, I wasn't allowed to question them.

    "This is actually the body and blood of Jesus Christ" Ok then..
    "You have original sin but you can't be free of it until you accept Jesus Christ" Ok then...

    I'm sure all the teachers and parents said this wasn't an issue in our lives, but it just wasn't true either.

    I'm sure the post-modernists will be along to show how it is actually the bloody and body of jesus christ, they are arguing just as crazy things in the Rowling and Linehan threads.

    What is jesus christ? Can you define him?


  • Options
    #398
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    wildeside wrote: »
    Are you saying I'm trying to redefine reality? I don't see how. My position is one that values objective truths particularly when it comes to the welfare of vulnerable children. What is your position exactly?


    Well, you are? What you consider to be reality and objective truths are not shared by the majority of people, which is why you find yourself being drowned out by the numbers of people who are pointing out that in reality, you do not and can not speak for them or their children. You can have your opinions certainly, and you can express those opinions, but nobody can be compelled or obligated to take your opinions seriously, and as it turns out, the vast majority of people do not appear to show any inclination to do so.

    If we take for example your characterisation of children as vulnerable. By that same token, from the opposite point of view, people who disagree with you also see children as vulnerable to being influenced by your ideas and opinions.

    Objectively speaking, the children aren’t actually vulnerable to anything. I’d be more concerned about adults being vulnerable to being influenced by narratives which are presented as representative of an issue which it is implied signal the downfall of civilisation. In reality all that’s happening is a few people are being reminded that they’re not as important in society as they actually believed themselves to be.


  • Options
    #399
    wildeside
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭wildeside


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Well, you are? What you consider to be reality and objective truths are not shared by the majority of people, which is why you find yourself being drowned out by the numbers of people who are pointing out that in reality, you do not and can not speak for them or their children. You can have your opinions certainly, and you can express those opinions, but nobody can be compelled or obligated to take your opinions seriously, and as it turns out, the vast majority of people do not appear to show any inclination to do so.

    If we take for example your characterisation of children as vulnerable. By that same token, from the opposite point of view, people who disagree with you also see children as vulnerable to being influenced by your ideas and opinions.

    Objectively speaking, the children aren’t actually vulnerable to anything. I’d be more concerned about adults being vulnerable to being influenced by narratives which are presented as representative of an issue which it is implied signal the downfall of civilisation. In reality all that’s happening is a few people are being reminded that they’re not as important in society as they actually believed themselves to be.

    Objectively speaking children aren't vulnerable to anything? ... I mean ... seriously, wtf?

    It boils down to this; do you believe a trans-woman is a woman? It's a simple yes or no.


  • Options
    #400
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    2u2me wrote: »
    I remember when I was a kid I was told all sorts of crazy things in school here in Ireland, I wasn't allowed to question them.

    "This is actually the body and blood of Jesus Christ" Ok then..
    "You have original sin but you can't be free of it until you accept Jesus Christ" Ok then...

    I'm sure all the teachers and parents said this wasn't an issue in our lives, but it just wasn't true either.

    I'm sure the post-modernists will be along to show how it is actually the bloody and body of jesus christ, they are arguing just as crazy things in the Rowling and Linehan threads.

    What is jesus christ? Can you define him?

    I'm not particularly religious now, but I did go to a Catholic school and I didn't find any of those things particularly harmful. It was very much take it or leave it.
    If some kids struggle with gender issues I have no problem with iniatives to help. I don't think the dafter ideas will take hold but I admit I'm not up to date with all the talk online.

    From my own personal perspective as a secondary teacher I haven't seen much of this as an issue. Again I acknowledge this is only my own experience and doesn't necessarily reflect what is going on elsewhere.


  • Options
    #401
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    wildeside wrote: »
    Objectively speaking children aren't vulnerable to anything? ... I mean ... seriously, wtf?

    It boils down to this; do you believe a trans-woman is a woman? It's a simple yes or no.


    Well they’re not? Think of it like Newton’s first law of motion - the only thing which renders a child in a vulnerable state is the imposition of an outside force. In this circumstance the outside force are ideas.

    You imagine that ideas which you disagree with are likely to have a negative impact on what you consider to be vulnerable children. Apart from that being incredibly convenient for your argument, you really have no idea how those ideas will influence children, or to what degree they can, if at all influence anyone.

    That’s why in reality it doesn’t actually matter to someone else what I think or what you think, people are inclined towards believing what suits them either way, so while that’s all it may come down to for you and you consider your opinions to be objective reality, the truth is that they really aren’t. Obviously that’s inconvenient for you, but welcome to reality.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Since this thread is about cancel culture. If there was a talk in a school by someone pushing a trans rights agenda, would people want it banned. Just curious.


  • Options
    #403
    wildeside
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭wildeside


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That’s why in reality it doesn’t actually matter to someone else what I think or what you think, people are inclined towards believing what suits them either way


    Let me get this straight, you are saying it doesn't matter what anybody thinks, ideas are just ideas and we all believe what we want?


  • Options
    #404
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,219 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    joe40 wrote: »
    Since this thread is about cancel culture. If there was a talk in a school by someone pushing a trans rights agenda, would people want it banned. Just curious.

    Well is it that simple...what school, what age are the kids, is it mandatory or voluntary that children attend, is it a one off, what other talks are kids expected to attend? Who is giving the talk? What is the justification of the talk?

    Will parents be allowed to stop their children being exposed to something they may fundamentally disagree with, will those parents be told...will those parents be allowed to attend or given an indication of the content...

    I think it is important that children who are of the age that they believe in Santa Clause should in school to learn how to read, write and do maths...ideologues should leave them alone!


  • Options
    #405
    Tired Gardener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Tired Gardener


    joe40 wrote: »
    Since this thread is about cancel culture. If there was a talk in a school by someone pushing a trans rights agenda, would people want it banned. Just curious.

    No, I'd want it to be challenged and questioned, like all ideas. Not challenging or questioning ideas just allows dogma to flourish.

    Also banning things doesn't work, look at the prohibition period in the USA. We Humans are far too rebellious to follow rules!


  • Options
    #406
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    wildeside wrote: »
    Let me get this straight, you are saying it doesn't matter what anybody thinks, ideas are just ideas and we all believe what we want?


    Yep.

    You’re doing it right now :D


  • Options
    #407
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    wildeside wrote: »
    Let me get this straight, you are saying it doesn't matter what anybody thinks, ideas are just ideas and we all believe what we want?

    Is that not the way it is, people have different ideas on things. Obviously there are some things which are self evident but for most things a range of opinion applies.


  • Options
    #408
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Tired Gardener wrote: »
    No, I'd want it to be challenged and questioned, like all ideas. Not challenging or questioning ideas just allows dogma to flourish.

    Also banning things doesn't work, look at the prohibition period in the USA. We Humans are far too rebellious to follow rules!

    Fair enough, that's a good attitude in my opinion.


  • Options
    #409
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    joe40 wrote: »
    Since this thread is about cancel culture. If there was a talk in a school by someone pushing a trans rights agenda, would people want it banned. Just curious.


    Ahh that’s not really cancel culture. Cancel culture refers to the idea of people’s opinions being invalidated when it is proposed that they are dissenting of the prevailing orthodoxy.

    That’s why it’s really only relevant among the liberal types, and why it’s the liberal types who are suddenly put out by the idea of their opinions no longer being considered of any value to the people who have surpassed them in terms of their virtue signalling ability :D


  • Options
    #410
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    Well is it that simple...what school, what age are the kids, is it mandatory or voluntary that children attend, is it a one off, what other talks are kids expected to attend? Who is giving the talk? What is the justification of the talk?

    Will parents be allowed to stop their children being exposed to something they may fundamentally disagree with, will those parents be told...will those parents be allowed to attend or given an indication of the content...

    I think it is important that children who are of the age that they believe in Santa Clause should in school to learn how to read, write and do maths...ideologues should leave them alone!

    I was thinking more in the case of secondary school kids.


  • Options
    #411
    wildeside
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭wildeside


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Yep.

    You’re doing it right now :D


    So there's no such thing as an objective reality? Just lots of different individuals floating around with their own ideas/versions of truth?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    Tired Gardener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Tired Gardener


    wildeside wrote: »
    So there's no such thing as an objective reality? Just lots of different individuals floating around with their own ideas/versions of truth?

    I've always wondered what those who claim there is no objective reality think about speed limits in residential areas? Sign says 40, but my reality says 120! Not sure that arguement would hold much water if pulled over by the Gardaí.


  • Options
    #413
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Tired Gardener wrote: »
    I've always wondered what those who claim there is no objective reality think about speed limits in residential areas? Sign says 40, but my reality says 120! Not sure that arguement would hold much water if pulled over by the Gardaí.

    I haven't heard of anyone saying there is no objective reality. Not anyone in mainstream thinking.
    I know Trump was mocked for his "alternative truth" claims. So I think terms like truth still have meaning.


  • Options
    #414
    wildeside
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭wildeside


    joe40 wrote: »
    Is that not the way it is, people have different ideas on things. Obviously there are some things which are self evident but for most things a range of opinion applies.


    Is it not objectively true that a cat cannot be a dog and that a man cannot be a woman in terms of biology?


  • Options
    #415
    Tired Gardener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Tired Gardener


    joe40 wrote: »
    I haven't heard of anyone saying there is no objective reality. Not anyone in mainstream thinking.

    I sadly have, and it is usually by people plagued by some nasty mental health issues. It is more about how people perceive reality, through different mental lenses.

    I did a bit of work helping people with mental health issues. It was a bit of an eye opener. Governments really need to do more to provide adequate mental health care. Sorry for the tangent, but we are failing a lot of people.

    Edit to add.

    Also found that some philosophy students have the same idea. Back in my uni days I hung around with a mixed group, and heard some very interesting ideas to say the least.


  • Options
    #416
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    wildeside wrote: »
    Is it not objectively true that a cat cannot be a dog and that a man cannot be a woman in terms of biology?



    https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943#/

    I'm not really knowledgeable on this topic but it would appear to be more complicated than that


  • Options
    #417
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Tired Gardener wrote: »
    I sadly have, and it is usually by people plagued by some nasty mental health issues. It is more about how people perceive reality, through different mental lenses.

    I did a bit of work helping people with mental health issues. It was a bit of an eye opener. Governments really need to do more to provide adequate mental health care. Sorry for the tangent, but we are failing a lot of people.

    Edit to add.

    Also found that some philosophy students have the same idea. Back in my uni days I hung around with a mixed group, and heard some very interesting ideas to say the least.

    A lot of advanced quantum physics would seem to dispute some of our observable objective truth. I'm not going to pretend to understand it but the ideas can get very weird

    But back in the real world that we actually experience there are undoubtedly objective truth which govern things.
    But it is also true that some things which were taken to be self evident even a few years ago are now viewed differently.

    On the point about mental health neglect I fully agree, suicide is still a major killer here.


  • Options
    #418
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    joe40 wrote: »
    Since this thread is about cancel culture. If there was a talk in a school by someone pushing a trans rights agenda, would people want it banned. Just curious.

    Except that's not actually what cancel culture is about. It would be about harassing the organisers of the talk, and seeking the destruction of their careers, possibly also harassing their family members too for their association with the organisers...

    Honestly, it depends on the content of the talk. If it's purely informational, then, no problem. Knowledge is power, and provides people with the ability to make informed choices. However, if the talk was aimed at promoting the application of Trans operations, or encouraging young people to see possible problems as being answerable by gender change, then I'd be against such a talk. Language has changed. We have so many more techniques available to affect how people think through marketing, and psychology. No sales pitch is simply a talk anymore...

    I have no real problem with trans topics, not really. My issue is about how short sighted those pushing the Trans agenda are. There is so little research done about the long term effects of, well, everything associated with their choices. So much research has been done which is conflicting, because it's following political agendas rather than seeking to reveal truths to help society. In many cases, those who have undergone surgeries, have developed serious personality disorders, or suicidal tendencies, whereas others haven't. Why is that? Did it depend on the individual, how they prepared themselves, their reasons for doing it, etc?

    I feel that we, as a society, have got into the habit of instigating change without fully considering the ramifications of those changes. We removed the power/authority of the Catholic Church in society, but replaced it with nothing, just as corporal punishment was removed from schools/homes but no serious practical alternatives were provided. IMHO this leaping before we knew reasonably what's going to happen, is why society has become rather unstable. I can remember when Ireland was an extremely safe country, where violent crime was pretty rare, and gun crime, even moreso. Now, the focus has shifted dramatically (nope, I'm not linking violence to trans issues. it's simply an example)

    I would love to see western societies invest some serious research into the area of trans issues, along with it's long term effects on both the individual and society, before we help making it perfectly acceptable everywhere.

    So, it would depend on the nature of the talk... honest information yes, sales pitch definitely not.


  • Options
    #419
    Tired Gardener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Tired Gardener


    joe40 wrote: »
    A lot of advanced quantum physics would seem to dispute some of our observable objective truth. I'm not going to pretend to understand it but the ideas can get very weird

    But back in the real world that we actually experience there are undoubtedly objective truth which govern things.
    But it is also true that some things which were taken to be self evident even a few years ago are now viewed differently.

    On the point about mental health neglect I fully agree, suicide is still a major killer here.

    The more Quantum physics discovers, the more it seems like either it or the universe is built on magic. The idea that atoms and subatomic particles are essentially empty voids between them is quite interesting.

    Personally I suspect that there is a fair bit of naval gazing with in the quantum physics academic world. Too devorced from natural sciences, but that is just my view on it.

    Our understanding is always in flux, we are always discovering and updating ideas of how things work.

    It is important to bare in mind in all this, the Human mind didn't evolve with the universe in mind. It evolved to help an ape navigate the African continent and juggle a complex social structure. So, we are bound to get things wrong along the way!

    Yeah, it is shocking to see the suicide rates. Those poor people.


  • Options
    #420
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,305 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    joe40 wrote: »
    https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943#/

    I'm not really knowledgeable on this topic but it would appear to be more complicated than that

    Interesting, but absolutely nothing to do with the trans debate


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    joe40 wrote: »
    I haven't heard of anyone saying there is no objective reality. Not anyone in mainstream thinking.
    I know Trump was mocked for his "alternative truth" claims. So I think terms like truth still have meaning.

    There is a whole school of thought that rejects the idea. This way of thinking is quite prevalent in Universities, particularly American ones, within certain departments.


Advertisement