Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[lobosrul5]

This is victim blaming.

There is a really easy way to foil your so-called "grievance mongers"... don't be a ******* racist; don't say racist things... ever. Don't give them the ammunition!

Serious question here, but even if everything he says is true is he really a victim? Its not a crime, or even a civil rights violation, in the United States to say something racist. Is having a racist slur levied at you any worse than just something mean and nasty?

 

[Elaedith]

This is victim blaming.

There is a really easy way to foil your so-called "grievance mongers"... don't be a ******* racist; don't say racist things... ever. Don't give them the ammunition!

Unless you have evidence she wouldn't have said the same thing to a white guy under the same circumstances, you have zero evidence she is racist.

Her response was stupid and inappropriate but there is no evidence Joseph is more a 'victim' than she is.

 

[d4m10n]

What we have on video is the default, and is confirmed by the witness.

You've no idea what the witness is confirming, and you've given us no good reason to believe they are confirming an exact quote rather than a paraphrase.

Sorry, but you've got to come to grips with the fact that your scenario (the one in which the canceled woman actually says "go back to your hood") is just another hypothetical.

Maybe your hypothetical is more likely than mine, but I remain (as ever) skeptical.

You're looking for any excuse to excuse the racist.

You are so confident in your conclusions, despite an abundance of alternate possibilities which haven't yet been ruled out.

 

[smartcooky]

You've no idea what the witness is confirming

Yes I do.

Frederick Joseph: Did she not just tell us to stay in our hood?

Bystander: She did.

This is the default, the null. No matter how you try to spin your apologism for the racist, this remains the default until PROVED OTHERWISE.

The only thing you have offered so far is some crap you made up, with no basis in fact.

Sorry, but you've got to come to grips with the fact that your scenario (the one in which the canceled woman actually says "go back to your hood") is just another hypothetical.

Nope. It is stated by the victim, and confirmed by the bystander.

Sorry, but you've got to come to grips with the fact what is claimed to have happened, actually happened and you just made stuff up to excuse the racist

Maybe your hypothetical is facts are more likely than mine the stuff I made up, but I remain (as ever) skeptical.You are so confident in your conclusions, despite an abundance of alternate possibilities which haven't yet been ruled out.

Again, I have not ruled out anything. I have assessed what is more likely

a. what we see happened, and what was claimed to have happened, or

b. what you made up, without evidence, from whole cloth.

Option a. is clearly more likely!

 

[smartcooky]

Unless you have evidence she wouldn't have said the same thing to a white guy under the same circumstances, you have zero evidence she is racist.

Say racist things, suffer racist consequences - in this case she lost her job.... and its exactly what she deserved.

Her response was stupid and inappropriate but there is no evidence Joseph is more a 'victim' than she is.

Her response was racist, any way you slice it!

When you direct something racist to another person, that other person is a victim of racism

 

[d4m10n]

This is the default, the null.

Nope. You are simply asserting that people are more likely to exactly and perfectly quote their interlocutors than they are to paraphrase their own impression of an interlocutor's intended meaning, while interacting in real time without the benefit of transcripts. You've done nothing to show that this is actually the case IRL, and I'm guessing you've yet to even skim Loftus on eyewitness reliability.

 

[ahhell]

You go ask the families of the hundreds of unarmed black people gunned down and murdered by white cops in the last 50 years if they think things have gotten much better.

All that is happened is that legislated racism ended* and what once used to be overt racism is now covert racism. Its the same demographic doing the same thing, white males mostly, in the south. The KKK hasn't gone away, its gone underground. They were pretty much the only game in town back then. Now there are more white supremacist organisations with a larger overall following that the KKK ever had....

11th

Hour Remnant Messenger
American Renaissance
American Freedom Party
American Nazi Party
Aryan Brotherhood of Texas
Aryan Republican Army was a white nationalist terrorist organization.
Aryan Nations
Asatru Folk
Atomwaffen Division
Council of Conservative Citizens
Creativity Alliance
EURO,
Hammerskin Nation
Identity Evropa
National Alliance
National Association for the Advancement of White People
National Policy Institute
National Vanguard
Nationalist Movement
Occidental Quarterly
The Order, or Brüder Schweigen
Pacifica Forum
Patriot Front
Phineas Priesthood
Pioneer Fund
Vanguard America
Volksfront
White America, Inc
White Aryan Resistance

Not significantly enough.




* You can make a very good argument that voter suppression laws being enacted in red states is racism because it is clearly aimed at suppressing voting by non-whites),

While there are a bunch more such organizations, I'd love to see some evidence that they have even remotely close to same number of members as the Klan once did.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/second-klan/509468/
There was a time when the Klan had rallies of 10s of thousands of members. Charlottesville had about 500 racists from all over the country. At its peak in the 20s, the Klan had between 3 and 6 million members.

The SPLC likes to make a big deal out of the growth in the number of such groups but most of them are the result of splits in previous groups. It would be like concluding that that there are more communists in the US circa 1990 than in 1940 on account of the proliferation of various communist parties in the US. Pretty much everytime there was a split among the soviet block and/or Chinese communist block there was a split in the associated US parties.

Honestly, its ******* absurd to claim the US hasn't gotten less racist or cops haven't gotten less racists than at anytime in the past. The reality that there is a social taboo against openly being racist is evidence we have gotten better. Seriously, the Dixiecrats were a thing. A guy had a legit run at the presidency on a platform that was explicitly racist, no dog whistles, just racist.

 

[smartcooky]

Nope. You are simply asserting observing that people are more likely to quote their interlocutors than they are to paraphrase their own impression of an interlocutor's intended meaning

FTFY

It is far more likely that the witness is agreeing with what was said than with some fantasy version you made up.

You've done nothing to show that this is actually the case IRL

Nope, that is not how it works. I don't need to show anything. We already know what happened!

The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.

and I'm guessing you've yet to even skim Loftus on eyewitness reliability.

I am already familiar with Loftus... I have even quoted her in a number of trial threads on this and other forums. But it does not apply here. She is talking about recall in testimony of things the witness saw or heard in the past or at some earlier time. What he have here is a witness immediately responding to what they heard, and that response is recorded on the ******* video!!!!

 

[d4m10n]

It is far more likely that the witness is agreeing with what was said than with some fantasy version you made up.

Assertion noted.

The witness may be agreeing with a paraphrase or agreeing with an exact quote; you’ve given us no reason to prefer one scenario over the other so far.

What he have here is a witness immediately responding to what they heard, and that response is recorded on the ******* video!!!!

The test subjects who claimed there was no gorilla on the basketball court were immediately responding to what they'd just seen on video.

 

[angrysoba]

They might, but it's a dumb argument.

"Hey, I'm going to go set that person on fire, they're a witch! Wanna come with?"

"No, I don't really approve of setting people on fire, even if you think they're witches."

"Then you're just as bad and now I'm going to set you on fire too!!!!!!!!"

It's a bit of a Mongol Hoard "Join or Die" approach.

Right...not sure how your analogy works here, but as we are in that territory, let's tweak the scenario to help you understand the point.

"Hey, I'm going to go set that person on fire, they're a witchblack! Wanna come with?"

"No, I don't really approve of setting black people on fire, even if you think they're witchesbecause I am not racist."

"Then you're just as bad and now I'm going to set you on fire too!!!!!!!!"Ooh, no biggie. I just thought I would ask out of politeness. Hey, it's so cool that we can agree to disagree in a civilized manner, not like ol' Mr. Anti-racist over there with his dramatic over-reactions to things and his loud denunciations of racism, and calling up my boss, etc...

No argument from me there. He's quite annoying, isn't he.

 

[smartcooky]

While there are a bunch more such organizations, I'd love to see some evidence that they have even remotely close to same number of members as the Klan once did.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/second-klan/509468/
here was a time when the Klan had rallies of 10s of thousands of members. Charlottesville had about 500 racists from all over the country. At its peak in the 20s, the Klan had between 3 and 6 million members.

Yeah, but err, no. The debate here is "since the 1960's"

The Klan at its peak you are talking about is in the 1920s. The so called "Third Klan" at around the time of MLK only had about 14,000 members, and it declined to about 2000 to 3500 by 1970
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#National_changes

It also had a resurgence up to a peak of about 10,000 in the early 1990s, but is now back to about 3,000 - the same as what it was at the end of the 1960s.

The SPLC likes to make a big deal out of the growth in the number of such groups but most of them are the result of splits in previous groups.

WARNING: This link is a to 976Kb PDF
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/f...violent-Far-Right-Hate-Groups_Dec2011-508.pdf

Honestly, its ******* absurd to claim the US hasn't gotten less racist or cops haven't gotten less racists than at anytime in the past. The reality that there is a social taboo against openly being racist is evidence we have gotten better. Seriously, the Dixiecrats were a thing. A guy had a legit run at the presidency on a platform that was explicitly racist, no dog whistles, just racist.

While US Society has improved, actual racism has not gone away, its gone underground, it has become systemic and it still widespread

Interact map - enjoy !
https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

 

[smartcooky]

The witness may be agreeing with a paraphrase or agreeing with an exact quote; you’ve given us no reason to prefer one scenario over the other so far.The test subjects who claimed there was no gorilla on the basketball court were immediately responding to what they'd just seen on video.

False comparison. The basketball test...

1. is a visual observation test, NOT an aural response test

2. the testee is intentionally misdirected by being told to count the number of passes made by players wearing white.

3. is a test to see what the observer will MISS seeing, not what the observer WILL see or hear.

When that test was first shown to me, I replied with the correct number of passes by the players in white as well as the fact that someone in a gorilla suit walked through the group.

I'm that ******* annoying bastard who handed the 20 question test in after less than a minute because I followed the instructions that said "read all the questions before starting" and found question 20, which said "do not answer any questions, just write your name at the top and hand the paper in". I'm that pedant who reads the all instructions for a new piece of equipment or software before I try to use it.

This not bragging - almost 60% of people do see the gorilla first time up.

 

[d4m10n]

This not bragging - almost 60% of people do see the gorilla first time up.

We apparently agree on the idea that people are relatively unreliable (40%) when distracted by other observations or considerations. We appear to disagree whether the unnamed witness in this particular case was thus distracted, but I'm erring on the side of skepticism rather than credulity, given that someone's livelihood is on the line.

 

[smartcooky]

We apparently agree on the idea that people are relatively unreliable (40%) when distracted by other observations or considerations. We appear to disagree whether the unnamed witness in this particular case was thus distracted, but I'm erring on the side of skepticism rather than credulity, given that someone's livelihood is on the line.

The basketball/gorilla test is not just distraction, it is intentional misdirection - the participants are told what it is they are supposed to be looking for, and specifically, it gives them a task that will keep them occupied looking for it for the whole length of the video (counting the passes by players dressed in white). Without that misdirection, say, if you just asked them to watch the video and comment I what they saw, a LOT more people will see the gorilla.

 

[Graham2001]

A more interesting example of 'Cancel Culture' is this one where the 'Woke' combined with Creationists from the Discovery Institute to promote the denaming Western Washington Universitie's Huxley College.


Here is an account at The Panda's Thumb:

Western Washington University’s Huxley College of the Environment was founded in 1969, the year of the Santa Barbara oil spill, when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire, and when Earth Day was proposed. It is now one of the oldest and most prestigious environmental colleges in the country. It was named for Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), famed not only as “Darwin’s Bulldog” after the 1859 publication of the Origin of Species, but also for his remarkable career, rising from a family too poor to pay for school to becoming a leading anatomist (proposing the kinship of humans with the great apes, and birds with dinosaurs), geologist, ethnologist, and philosopher (coiner of the word “agnostic,” foe of Social Darwinism). Above all he was a leading figure in making science a profession (rather than a hobby for priests and the landed gentry), and making a liberal science education available to all.

Despite accomplishing more than most could ever dream for science and public science education, Huxley is now in the dock at WWU. The main charge is racism, with many at WWU calling for Huxley College to be renamed. WWU’s president commissioned a Legacy Review Task Force which issued a Report making the rather elliptical claim that Huxley’s “ethnological accomplishments were grounded in white supremacist values that dehumanize and harm many members of the Western community.” More directly, the Report indicts him for advocating polygenism (the idea that different human races are separate species) and “many negative generalizations on the basis of race.”

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2021/10/creationists-social-justice-advocates-unite-take-down-huxley.html

 

[Boudicca90]

The basketball/gorilla test is not just distraction, it is intentional misdirection - the participants are told what it is they are supposed to be looking for, and specifically, it gives them a task that will keep them occupied looking for it for the whole length of the video (counting the passes by players dressed in white). Without that misdirection, say, if you just asked them to watch the video and comment I what they saw, a LOT more people will see the gorilla.

The funny thing about this test is that because it is so famous and shown so often in college, it eventually becomes useless since everyone expects the gorilla to show up.

By the time my Psy 101 professor showed us the video, I had already seen it twice in other classes, lol.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Serious question here, but even if everything he says is true is he really a victim? Its not a crime, or even a civil rights violation, in the United States to say something racist. Is having a racist slur levied at you any worse than just something mean and nasty?

Whereas an individual act of hostility could potentially indicate a prelude to violence coming from an individual, a racial slur delivered in a society where racist systems of oppression exist in powerful public institutions, the implied threat is multiplied in so many ways.

One person's fists could be scary. One frantic 9-1-1 call can be deadly.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

composer Bright Sheng

"A professor has taken over the undergraduate class previously taught by Bright Sheng, Leonard Bernstein Distinguished University Professor of Composition, David Gier, dean of the School of Music, Theatre & Dance announced Friday. The announcement comes almost a month after Sheng showed a video to an undergraduate composition seminar featuring an actor in blackface." Michigan Daily

The video was the 1965 movie version of the play Othello and the actor was Laurence Olivier. Some have been unhappy with a few aspects of Laurence Olivier's performance through the years, it must be acknowledged.

 

[d4m10n]

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1446239072213733376

University defends ‘academic freedoms’ after calls to sack professor https://t.co/SuT02PVKxj

 

[Chris_Halkides]

More on Bright Sheng and Othello

Robby Soave wrote, "The University of Michigan is a public institution at which students and professors deserve free speech and expression rights. It is a violation of the university's cherished principles of academic freedom to punish Sheng for the choices he makes in the classroom. Screening a racially problematic film in an educational setting is neither a racist act nor an endorsement of racism. At this point, it is Sheng who is owed an apology from the broader university community for falsely maligning him."

I would go slightly further and say that (with some narrow exceptions) professors have first amendment rights at a public university (the distinction between public and private universities in the United States is worth making in this regard).