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…1213151718…23

Comments

  • Options
    #422
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    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.

    Such as what?


  • Options
    #423
    SlowMotion321
    Registered Users Posts: 415 ✭✭SlowMotion321


    Tired Gardener wrote: »
    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.

    You mean a wizard really did do it? :eek:


  • Options
    #424
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    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.

    I can agree with most of that. I was thinking of cancel culture as the cancelling of talks on University campuses that were deemed harmful. The other stuff about destroying careers, I have very little time for. I suppose you're right that's what cancel culture has come to mean.

    Trans as simply a lifestyle choice shouldn't be promoted but at the same time I believe there are genuine transgender people. I'm really not knowledgeable enough about the issue, but I think it should belong more in the realm of Medicine and science as opposed to politics.

    So absolutely more research on the long term affects.

    That applies to both sides in my opinion. Total denial of trans issues versus unquestioning acceptance and actual promotion are both wrong. People are impressionable.

    As for removing corporal punishment from schools, absolutely glad to see the back of it. I couldn't imagine hitting a child, or a parent tolerating it.
    I think Ireland is a safer country now in many respects. There were cases years ago of abuse in families that were widely known in local communities but nothing done about. I'm just talking about the 80s

    Times change and each era has its own problems. I think maybe in an effort to ensure fairness and equality for all the equilibrium is shifting too far in one direction. I think it will correct itself.


  • Options
    #425
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    Such as what?

    Well I imagine the idea that Men marry Women was simply a self evident objective truth. Why would Men marry men or women marry Women.


  • Options
    #426
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    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?


    That’s essentially it really, and those ideas change over time, and some people who wish to maintain the status quo refer to it as objective reality because it suits them, whereas if one were to observe objective reality, it doesn’t actually look anything like they imagine. Everyone has their own ideas of what constitutes objective, based entirely upon their own subjective perspective, which is fine among people who also share their perspective, but when they have to acknowledge the reality that there are people who don’t, that’s when their opinions on objective reality aren’t worth much.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #427
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    joe40 wrote: »
    Well I imagine the idea that Men marry Women was simply a self evident objective truth. Why would Men marry men or women marry Women.

    With respect, I think you mins-understand what is meant by self evident objective truth (or at least what is my understanding). An evident objective truth is, for example, that a male cannot turn into a female. Marriage is a, and I can't believe I'm about to use this term!, social construct.

    An objective truth is something that is the way it is, regardless of humans are aware of it or not. The World was globular even before we knew it was.


  • Options
    #428
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That’s essentially it really, and those ideas change over time, and some people who wish to maintain the status quo refer to it as objective reality because it suits them, whereas if one were to observe objective reality, it doesn’t actually look anything like they imagine. Everyone has their own ideas of what constitutes objective, based entirely upon their own subjective perspective, which is fine among people who also share their perspective, but when they have to acknowledge the reality that there are people who don’t, that’s when their opinions on objective reality aren’t worth much.

    Ofcourse there is an objective reality. Do you think all scientific discoveries are subjective? Is the world being globular subjective in your view?


  • Options
    #429
    SlowMotion321
    Registered Users Posts: 415 ✭✭SlowMotion321


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    With respect, I think you mins-understand what is meant by self evident objective truth (or at least what is my understanding). An evident objective truth is, for example, that a male cannot turn into a female. Marriage is a, and I can't believe I'm about to use this term!, social construct.

    An objective truth is something that is the way it is, regardless of humans are aware of it or not. The World was globular even before we knew it was.

    (Pedant alert)

    Actually some fish can and I believe frogs can as well!

    Carry on!


  • Options
    #430
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    SlowMotion321 wrote: »
    (Pedant alert)

    Actually some fish can and I believe frogs can as well!

    Carry on!

    Haha yes you got me there. I meant with respect to humans.


  • Options
    #431
    SlowMotion321
    Registered Users Posts: 415 ✭✭SlowMotion321


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    Haha yes you got me there. I meant with respect to humans.

    :D Other than that I tend to agree with you!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #432
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    With respect, I think you mins-understand what is meant by self evident objective truth (or at least what is my understanding). An evident objective truth is, for example, that a male cannot turn into a female. Marriage is a, and I can't believe I'm about to use this term!, social construct.

    An objective truth is something that is the way it is, regardless of humans are aware of it or not. The World was globular even before we knew it was.

    Fair enough I thought you meant widely accepted views that people held without question.

    But in terms of the trans issue there have been transgender people for years. It's not necessarily new and is accepted in the medical community. Sex change operations have been around for awhile. So it would appear that males can turn into females and vice versa. With medical intervention.
    It is also fairly widely accepted that sex and gender aren't inextricably linked.
    I understand the social issues involved and would share many of the concerns people express but at the same time I believe transgenderism has a scientific and medical basis.

    Maybe there is something I'm missing as I said I'm not up to date with all the online talk on this issue.


  • Options
    #433
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    Ofcourse there is an objective reality. Do you think all scientific discoveries are subjective? Is the world being globular subjective in your view?


    Of course you’re aware we’re talking about human perception, so reality is nothing more than a philosophical concept in that context, that’s why while it is true that humans cannot fly for example, insert them into a pressurised cigar shaped container with wings and there you go.

    Of course there’s more to it than that, but for a long period in human history it was an objective reality that humans simply could not fly. If someone says they’re a woman, then really, what are you going to do about it other than disagree with them? Who’s objective reality do you imagine they’re going to care for more - your idea of objective reality, or theirs?


  • Options
    #434
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    joe40 wrote: »
    Fair enough I thought you meant widely accepted views that people held without question.

    But in terms of the trans issue there have been transgender people for years. It's not necessarily new and is accepted in the medical community. Sex change operations have been around for awhile. So it would appear that males can turn into females and vice versa. With medical intervention.
    It is also fairly widely accepted that sex and gender aren't inextricably linked.
    I understand the social issues involved and would share many of the concerns people express but at the same time I believe transgenderism has a scientific and medical basis.

    Maybe there is something I'm missing as I said I'm not up to date with all the online talk on this issue.

    Fair enough. Look, I've been involved in enough threads about trans-issues, and there are enough of them on boards, so I think it best if this thread stayed away from the issue!


  • Options
    #435
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    joe40 wrote: »
    Fair enough I thought you meant widely accepted views that people held without question.

    But in terms of the trans issue there have been transgender people for years. It's not necessarily new and is accepted in the medical community. Sex change operations have been around for awhile. So it would appear that males can turn into females and vice versa. With medical intervention.
    It is also fairly widely accepted that sex and gender aren't inextricably linked.
    I understand the social issues involved and would share many of the concerns people express but at the same time I believe transgenderism has a scientific and medical basis.

    Maybe there is something I'm missing as I said I'm not up to date with all the online talk on this issue.

    Fair enough. Look, I've been involved in enough threads about trans-issues, and there are enough of them on boards, so I think it best if this thread stayed away from the issue!


  • Options
    #436
    wildeside
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭wildeside


    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

    I know that there are outliers in the human condition (e.g. intersex) that don't fall into neat little buckets which are the exception, rather than the rule. And I think people should be more than willing to discuss the science and the data behind these outliers.

    But if we're going to discuss this with kids then bring it up in the context of the science cirriculum, in secondary school (not primary) and not have the conversation driven by some outside trans 'expert' that doesn't have two chromosomes to rub together. Stick to the science and let young people decide for themselves if the science is relevant to their experience or not. We shouldn't allow individuals motivated by identity politics into our schools to teach about sex/gender anymore than we should allow religious organisations teach our kids about sex/gender.

    There is the added complication that the teenage years are very intense and often very confusing. We should be honest with them that what they think now may not be what they think in only a few short years, so they shouldn't feel the need to rush into any life altering decisions at such a young age (that they may ultimately want to reverse [https://www.thestranger.com/features/2017/06/28/25252342/the-detransitioners-they-were-transgender-until-they-werent]). And to be wary of peer pressure and the impact of social media in terms of it's ability to shape opinions for good or ill.

    This is all a lot to ask I know and it's fiendishly complicated, but I don't think the solution here is to just leave them at it and see what happens. There's already too many horror stories about detransitioning for people to take a laissez-faire attitude to this.

    We should stick to the science, get the identity politics out of this and highlight the pitfalls of making potentially irreversible life changing decisions at a very young age.


  • Options
    #437
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Of course you’re aware we’re talking about human perception, so reality is nothing more than a philosophical concept in that context, that’s why while it is true that humans cannot fly for example, insert them into a pressurised cigar shaped container with wings and there you go.

    Of course there’s more to it than that, but for a long period in human history it was an objective reality that humans simply could not fly. If someone says they’re a woman, then really, what are you going to do about it other than disagree with them? Who’s objective reality do you imagine they’re going to care for more - your idea of objective reality, or theirs?

    What do you mean 'my idea of objective reality'. There is one objective reality. Is the fact that the world is globular a subjective, or objective truth?


  • Options
    #438
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    wildeside wrote: »
    We should stick to the science, get the identity politics out of this and highlight the pitfalls of making potentially irreversible life changing decisions at a very young age.


    You’re more than welcome to stick to the science (as science is barely scratching the surface of all this stuff, good luck with that), but don’t pretend you’re not inserting your own identity politics into it by trying to exclude children having access to opinions you disagree with. That’s hardly the pursuit of scientific evidence, is it? Nor is it encouraging children to engage their natural ability to think critically about all these issues. You’re essentially just presenting children with your perspective, which is fine, but don’t pretend like what you’re doing is objective, and I don’t imagine other people will simply go along with it either. Why would you think they should?


  • Options
    #439
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    wildeside wrote: »
    I know that there are outliers in the human condition (e.g. intersex) that don't fall into neat little buckets which are the exception, rather than the rule. And I think people should be more than willing to discuss the science and the data behind these outliers.

    But if we're going to discuss this with kids then bring it up in the context of the science cirriculum, in secondary school (not primary) and not have the conversation driven by some outside trans 'expert' that doesn't have two chromosomes to rub together. Stick to the science and let young people decide for themselves if the science is relevant to their experience or not. We shouldn't allow individuals motivated by identity politics into our schools to teach about sex/gender anymore than we should allow religious organisations teach our kids about sex/gender.

    There is the added complication that the teenage years are very intense and often very confusing. We should be honest with them that what they think now may not be what they think in only a few short years, so they shouldn't feel the need to rush into any life altering decisions at such a young age (that they may ultimately want to reverse [https://www.thestranger.com/features/2017/06/28/25252342/the-detransitioners-they-were-transgender-until-they-werent]). And to be wary of peer pressure and the impact of social media in terms of it's ability to shape opinions for good or ill.

    This is all a lot to ask I know and it's fiendishly complicated, but I don't think the solution here is to just leave them at it and see what happens. There's already too many horror stories about detransitioning for people to take a laissez-faire attitude to this.

    We should stick to the science, get the identity politics out of this and highlight the pitfalls of making potentially irreversible life changing decisions at a very young age.

    Yeah I can agree with that. Boys wanting to wear makeup is one thing but medical intervention/change is a whole different ball game. Making this political can have an undue influence.

    I would hope the medical community would be responsible in these cases.

    Anyway as a previous poster said plenty of trans threads, maybe a bit off topic here.


  • Options
    #440
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    What do you mean 'my idea of objective reality'. There is one objective reality. Is the fact that the world is globular a subjective, or objective truth?


    Well the planet is globular, the world, not so much, but because I know what you mean, I’m not going to argue semantics.


  • Options
    #441
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    There's always time for a joke :D

    108118120-10157401992076218-1675210426101122443-n.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #442
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Well the planet is globular, the world, not so much, but because I know what you mean, I’m not going to argue semantics.

    Yes the planet known in the English speaking World as the World.

    Is that your subjective reality or is that the case objectively speaking, that the planet is globular?


  • Options
    #443
    SlowMotion321
    Registered Users Posts: 415 ✭✭SlowMotion321


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    What do you mean 'my idea of objective reality'. There is one objective reality. Is the fact that the world is globular a subjective, or objective truth?

    Depends on whether you ask a flat earther or a sane person!


  • Options
    #444
    wildeside
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭wildeside


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Of course you’re aware we’re talking about human perception, so reality is nothing more than a philosophical concept in that context, that’s why while it is true that humans cannot fly for example, insert them into a pressurised cigar shaped container with wings and there you go.

    Of course there’s more to it than that, but for a long period in human history it was an objective reality that humans simply could not fly. If someone says they’re a woman, then really, what are you going to do about it other than disagree with them? Who’s objective reality do you imagine they’re going to care for more - your idea of objective reality, or theirs?

    So you don't think there exists a world of facts independent of your own thoughts, beliefs and opinions i.e. an objective reality?

    And humans could not fly simply because we had not yet understood and mastered various laws of physics i.e. an objective reality that exists independant of humans and has done so, in our universe at least, for billions of years.


  • Options
    #445
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    Yes the planet known in the English speaking World as the World.

    Is that your subjective reality or is that the case objectively speaking, that the planet is globular?


    Read that back to yourself again before you start asking anyone about objective reality.


  • Options
    #446
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Read that back to yourself again before you start asking anyone about objective reality.

    Can you answer the question and stop deflecting.


  • Options
    #447
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    Can you answer the question and stop deflecting.


    I already answered your question.

    That you didn’t get the answer you wanted, isn’t my problem.


  • Options
    #448
    wildeside
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭wildeside


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    You’re more than welcome to stick to the science (as science is barely scratching the surface of all this stuff, good luck with that), but don’t pretend you’re not inserting your own identity politics into it by trying to exclude children having access to opinions you disagree with. That’s hardly the pursuit of scientific evidence, is it? Nor is it encouraging children to engage their natural ability to think critically about all these issues. You’re essentially just presenting children with your perspective, which is fine, but don’t pretend like what you’re doing is objective, and I don’t imagine other people will simply go along with it either. Why would you think they should?


    Ok, so if you agree that science is just barely scratching the surface would you not agree we should exercise extreme caution when it comes to, for example, hormone therapy for adolescents or life chaning surgery? I'm advocating for caution and reason.


    I'm not trying to insert my politics into this debate, I'm trying to take the politics out.


  • Options
    #449
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I already answered your question.

    That you didn’t get the answer you wanted, isn’t my problem.

    You didn't answer. I'll ask again. Referring to the World, the planet we live on being globular, which you agree it is:

    Is that your subjective reality or is that the case objectively speaking, that the planet is globular?


  • Options
    #450
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    wildeside wrote: »
    Ok, so if you agree that science is just barely scratching the surface would you not agree we should exercise extreme caution when it comes to, for example, hormone therapy for adolescents or life chaning surgery? I'm advocating for caution and reason.

    I'm not trying to insert my politics into this debate, I'm trying to take the politics out.


    I’m sure there are plenty of scientists who do argue already about caution and reason when it comes to this stuff, not to the degree that Andrew Wakefield did of course, but then at the opposite end of the scale we have this sort of stuff going on -


    Primodos scandal: 'Significant' changes were made to key report


    So there is much to be valued in viewing issues with a healthy degree of skepticism, but when it’s bordering on paranoia, I would suggest that’s holding back or trying to impede progress. I don’t support medicalisation or pathologisation anyway so I wouldn’t be interested in promoting hormones and surgeries in any case, but if a school wanted to include it as part of their curriculum on SPHE, then I’m not going to attempt to stop them. I just wouldn’t send my child to that school to be educated.

    You’ll never, ever be able to take the politics out of what are by their very definition intellectual pursuits such as education and academia and science. By even arguing caution and reason, you’re ignoring the reality that some children aren’t even seeking their parents approval before they go ordering hormones over the Internet. I don’t think whether it is or isn’t on the curriculum in school is going to make a whole pile of difference to be honest. You’re still working off the assumption that scientists, clinicians and a whole body of medical professionals don’t already exercise reason and caution when it comes to children’s healthcare, as to do otherwise would simply be regarded as unethical.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #451
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,305 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Well the planet is globular, the world, not so much, but because I know what you mean, I’m not going to argue semantics.

    The observable universe is globular shaped....


Advertisement