Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

Upchurch said:
Yes, because trans people have so much power compared to a popular celebrity who, despite all the handwringing, still has 5 comedy specials and a Comedy Central series on the world’s largest streaming service.

Also, are you under the impression that trans people are “middle and upper class white males”?
Click to expand...

Not all, but the vast majority are.
 
smartcooky said:
Good, that is the effect I would hope for. Think about what you say before you say it means it is much harder to spread your racism and bigotry. I made the mistake of not doing that in post#311 and was rightly called for it by angrysoba.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, though. I think your stance is way, way, way too censorious.

I like to think of myself as a reasonable man who doesn't accept bigotry but who thinks there should be more in the tool-kit than just a BANHAMMER for people who don't behave within exacting standards.

While my eyes roll to the back of my head when I hear certain commentators talking about how the "world has gone mad" and how CRT, diverstiy and inclusivity and not being an ******* to transgender people is somehow PC gone mad etc..., I also have to agree that in some cases there is a zeal to get people fired or punished for relatively minor transgressions.

This is why I asked you if smartcooky would forgive smartcooky for saying "Uncle Tom". Clearly you felt that retracting and apologizing was enough. I agree that it should be, but not everyone does, and from what you have said on this thread, it would seem that you don't either. I believe you even said you would fire a university teacher for saying "Spanish flu". That is censorious in the extreme, in my opinion. And you have also cheered on when, say, a woman in a dog park may, or may not have used a racially-suggestive word, got doxxed and fired from her job. That to me also seems censorious and unforgiving in the extreme.

You may want to realize that being extreme in all your views isn't exactly consistent with skepticism or reason.
 
I found this article on Spiked about the Dave Chappelle affair, apparently he's 'White Adjacent' now...


The furore over Dave Chappelle’s latest comedy special for Netflix, The Closer, rages on and on. The essence of the problem is that a lot of trans activists believe that Chappelle crosses a line in some of his jokes about trans people. They want Netflix to take the special off its platform. So far, their entreaties have not been yielded to.





In all of this uproar, something genuinely interesting has come to light – the apparent meaning and use of the phrase ‘white privilege’. This is because – and some of you reading this might think I am making this up or exaggerating, so stay with me here – Dave Chappelle, a black American man, has been accused of ‘using white privilege’.
Click to expand...


https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/10/25/is-dave-chappelle-using-white-privilege/


Also relating to that is Jerry Coyne commenting on a posting by Andrew Sullivan regarding some of the language used at the protests against Chappelle:


Here’s Andrew Sullivan’s take on the incident from his latest column on Substack (I believe a read is free, but do subscribe):
It was, as it turned out, a bit of a non-event. The walkout by transgender Netflix employees and their supporters to demand that the company take down and apologize for the latest Chappelle special attracted “dozens,” despite media hype.
But the scenes were nonetheless revealing. A self-promoting jokester showed up with a placard with the words “We Like Jokes” and “We Like Dave” to represent an opposing view. He was swiftly accosted by a man who ripped the poster apart, leaving the dude with just a stick, prompting the assailant to shout “He’s got a weapon!” Pushed back by other protestors, he was then confronted by a woman right in front of him — shaking a tambourine — and yelling repeatedly into his face: “Repent, m**********r! Repent! Repent!”
Click to expand...


https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021...he-netflix-walkout-and-the-anti-gay-movement/


Coyne links to Sullivan's article in his post and for once some of the comments are worth reading especially the one by a poster called James Walker discussing the tensions in the Gay Rights movement in the 1980s (e.g after AIDS.)
 
dirtywick said:
somebody yelled at someone with a tambourine. truly disturbing stuff
Click to expand...

It's not so much the yelling, as the choice of words, “Repent, m**********r! Repent! Repent!” has a decidedly 'religious zealotry' air to it.
 
Graham2001 said:
It's not so much the yelling, as the choice of words, “Repent, m**********r! Repent! Repent!” has a decidedly 'religious zealotry' air to it.
Click to expand...

No doubt, but can we please try to elucidate the situation a little rather than just yell at clouds.

What is the problem?
How can the problem be fixed?

It seems to me that the “problem” is very vague. And people are cherry picking examples to forge a narrative which comes across as a bit of a moral panic.
 
angrysoba said:
<politye snip>I believe you even said you would fire a university teacher for saying "Spanish flu". That is censorious in the extreme, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Not quite what I said.

In the correct context, where you would use the term in a discussion about how it was inappropriate to use it, then fair enough. Even if you use it out of such a context, so long as you withdraw and apologise when challenged on it, and undertake not do it again, also fine.

Where I draw line would be its use, and when challenged on it, doubling down, and defending its use while screaming about "freeze peach" and "akidemik feedumb" like that idiot Jon Zubieta when he used Wuhan Virus as a slur in a chemistry syllabus. Not only did the subject material have nothing to so with the virus, it was not even in the body of the syllabus work, it was the bloody safety document!! Completely unacceptable behaviour IMO

angrysoba said:
And you have also cheered on when, say, a woman in a dog park may, or may not have used a racially-suggestive word, got doxxed and fired from her job. That to me also seems censorious and unforgiving in the extreme.
Click to expand...

Again, she had opportunities to back down from her racist rant. She didn't do it, UNTIL the video went viral - The only thing she is sorry about is that she got filmed being racist; he go caught. I believe 100% that had there been no video, she would never have apologised to the man.
 
Graham2001 said:
I found this article on Spiked about the Dave Chappelle affair, apparently he's 'White Adjacent' now...





https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/10/25/is-dave-chappelle-using-white-privilege/


Also relating to that is Jerry Coyne commenting on a posting by Andrew Sullivan regarding some of the language used at the protests against Chappelle:





https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021...he-netflix-walkout-and-the-anti-gay-movement/


Coyne links to Sullivan's article in his post and for once some of the comments are worth reading especially the one by a poster called James Walker discussing the tensions in the Gay Rights movement in the 1980s (e.g after AIDS.)
Click to expand...


A controversial comedian... :rolleyes: I probably wouldn't have watched it at all if not for all the publicity.

I don't understand people complaining because a comedian said offensive things about their group. That's what they do.

Welcome to the club, now get over yourselves. As a bald white Italian with more body hair than Bigfoot I know what being the butt of a joke is. You aren't that special.
 
I’d describe the Dave Chapelle cancel culture crusade the crown jewel of manufactured outrage. But then he did it again.
 
mgidm86 said:
A controversial comedian... :rolleyes: I probably wouldn't have watched it at all if not for all the publicity.

I don't understand people complaining because a comedian said offensive things about their group. That's what they do.

Welcome to the club, now get over yourselves. As a bald white Italian with more body hair than Bigfoot I know what being the butt of a joke is. You aren't that special.
Click to expand...
An astute observation. Trans people will have to accept being fodder for mean spirited jokes, a totally novel development. /s
 
dirtywick said:
I’d describe the Dave Chapelle cancel culture crusade the crown jewel of manufactured outrage. But then he did it again.
Click to expand...

Yea it is remarkable how quickly Netflix took down the offending program. A clear example of cancel culture there, virtually no one had a chance to see it, and the added noise certainly didn't drive more people too it giving it even higher ratings.
 
Jared Holt's podcast today about modern moral panics is worth a listen.

Our Modern Moral Panics (10/26/21) ft/ Michael Hobbes
Fears that an 'anti-liberal' left is gaining over society should be understood as a public hysteria that often falls apart under scrutiny
Click to expand...

https://shtpost.substack.com/p/our-modern-moral-panics-102621-ft

Wasn't sure whether this thread or the CRT thread was more appropriate, as they both seem as part of the same greater "anti-woke" freakout.

Jared interviews Michael Hobbes about his piece here:

The Methods of Moral Panic Journalism
Scare stories on "left-wing illiberalism" display a familiar pattern.

I have (God help me) read a huge amount of this coverage and the thing that strikes me, over and over again, is the sheer sameness of it. Thousands upon thousands of words dedicated to the same arguments, the same low-stakes anecdotes, the same tortured historical analogies. Other than slight tweaks to the headlines, few of these stories even attempt to offer any original reporting or perspective.

And so, because I don’t have time to debunk all of these articles, I’m going to pick on two of them. Last month, The Economist and The Atlantic published long features purporting to explore the phenomena of “Left-Wing Illiberalism” and “New Puritanism,” respectively. While both stories display the superficial features of investigative journalism, a deep dive reveals the same motivated reasoning, nonexistent evidence and indefensible editorial standards that misinformed the public about frivolous lawsuits.

It’s happening again. And here’s how to spot it.
Click to expand...

https://michaelhobbes.substack.com/
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Surely you have a citation for this whopper of a claim.
Click to expand...

Not addressed to me, but I was curious.

According to this, white people are less likely to be transgender. It doesn’t say this, but I assume there are still more of them due to the majority of US being white. (Is that still true?*)

According to this, the rate of MTF transitions are about equal to FTM transitions.

I couldn’t find anything on current numbers, exactly.

I don’t think that this supports EC’s claim that there is a “vast majority” in the community, let alone that they are one thing or another.


*ETA: it is not still true. By the numbers, there should be more Hispanic transgender people, than white.

ETA2: Actually, if these trends remain consistent, we should expect the majority of transgenders to be Hispanic trans men over time.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Got about as far as "TERF-ese for 'trans people don’t exist'" before giving up on Michael Hobbes.
Click to expand...

'The Economist cites the case of Colin Wright, a post-doctoral student who had difficulty finding a job after publishing a series of essays “arguing that sex is a biological reality” (TERF-ese for “trans people don’t exist”).'

Oh, Hobbes is that one.
An evolutionary biologist states a scientific fact that contradicts the tenets of pseudoscientific postmodern gender theory (analogous to an evolutionary biologist stating simple facts about biology that contradict intelligent decision) but is really saying 'trans people don't exist', and therefore by implication it's not a serious problem that his career was ruined (actually I believe it was due to sharing a peer-reviewed journal article on gender dysphoria that contradicted the ideological narrative).

Hobbes can say this, and in the same breath claim that left illiberalism doesn't exist. It's a complete and utter lack of self-insight, which I suppose is true of all those caught up in fundamentalist cults.
 
Elaedith said:
'The Economist cites the case of Colin Wright, a post-doctoral student who had difficulty finding a job after publishing a series of essays “arguing that sex is a biological reality” (TERF-ese for “trans people don’t exist”).'



Oh, Hobbes is that one.

An evolutionary biologist states a scientific fact that contradicts the tenets of pseudoscientific postmodern gender theory (analogous to an evolutionary biologist stating simple facts about biology that contradict intelligent decision) but is really saying 'trans people don't exist', and therefore by implication it's not a serious problem that his career was ruined (actually I believe it was due to sharing a peer-reviewed journal article on gender dysphoria that contradicted the ideological narrative).



Hobbes can say this, and in the same breath claim that left illiberalism doesn't exist. It's a complete and utter lack of self-insight, which I suppose is true of all those caught up in fundamentalist cults.
Click to expand...

"It is not nearly as widespread or distressing as many dubiously (even entirely false) presented examples would lead one to believe."

"It doesn't exist."

I'm confused, are you for or against misleading summarization of an issue?


You found one point of disagreement and cast away the entire article and disparage the author.

I'm confused, are you for or against rigorous ideological purity?

Oh, Colin is fine.

He's managing editor of a publication, has a podcast, gets speaking gigs...

Yeah, he's "ruined."

You're literally doing what the article described.

ETA: he's found an income stream from telling people how he can't get work. Nice gig if you can get it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom