• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

SuburbanTurkey said:
What I constantly keep wondering to myself is how much of this whole "cancel culture" freakout is just the side effects of the people panicking as they age and increasingly find themselves being "uncool" in the eyes of some younger generations. Comedians who spent their younger years being edgy and in touch with the cultural moment often seem to react pretty negatively as life moves on. The "hip comedian" to "old man yelling at cloud" pipeline never fails to deliver.

The fact that a huge age cohort, the baby boomers, is currently entering their elderly years and see their cultural dominance waning is probably at the root of a lot of this.

There's really no reason why people must age this gracelessly, and obviously the most deranged voices are the loudest.
Click to expand...
It should be know as the law of Get Off My Lawn.
 
Hilarious article from the Idaho Statesman picked up nationally. It regards a troglodyte political science professor's comments about women...

“Our culture is steeped with feminism,” Yenor said during the conference. “It teaches young boys and girls that they are motivated by much the same things and want much the same things.”

“Thus girls are told to become as independent as boys are said to be. ... [sic] They are more medicated, meddlesome and quarrelsome than women need to be.”

[...]

He also said the country needs to “de-emphasize” its colleges and universities, and called universities “indoctrination camps” and “the citadels of our gynecocracy.”

[...]

“Every effort must be made not to recruit women into engineering, but rather to recruit and demand more of men who become engineers. Ditto for med school, and the law, and every trade.”
Click to expand...

The university is standing by their man (good), but I immediately thought of Title IX vulnerability, and indeed a quarrelsome clam raises the possibility that someone may file such a complaint. All in all, I thought he made some good points, but ya can't say "gynecocracy" without saying "cock."
 
Last edited:
Cain said:
Hilarious article from the Idaho Statesman picked up nationally. It regards a troglodyte political science professor's comments about women...



The university is standing by their man (good), but I immediately thought of Title IX vulnerability, and indeed a quarrelsome clam raises the possibility that someone may file such a complaint. All in all, I thought he made some good points, but ya can't say "gynecocracy" without saying "cock."
Click to expand...

Bari Weiss will probably be offering him a job teaching engineering at the University of Austin soon enough.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I have to admit being conflicted between supporting freedom of speech and academic freedom and... well... opposing advocacy for pedophilia.
Click to expand...
I would feel much the same, had the prof in question advocated for destigmatizing sexual abuse of children.
 
d4m10n said:
I would feel much the same, had the prof in question advocated for destigmatizing sexual abuse of children.
Click to expand...

The fine line in there is probably best suited to a different thread, it's going to spread far beyond "Cancel Culture". I mean, I don't have any moral or philosophical problem with people watching violent porn... but the destigmatization of that violent porn has led to an increase in acts of violence during sex with real people, including multiple choking deaths by people engaging in "breath play" compliments of the porn they've been watching. I think there are cases where "destigmatizing" something that has fairly obvious downside risks is perhaps not a good idea. And I think that "destigmatizing" sexual attraction to children as a concept is likely to result in an increase in actual sexual abuse of children.

At the end of the day, I support free speech, even when I strongly disagree with it. In this case, I support the right of that person to hold those views... and the right of other people to argue against them. I don't think that them having those views is sufficient in and of itself to be grounds for dismissal. But in this case, I believe it also became a component of the curriculum... and I do think that the university could reasonably dismiss a teacher for advocating for pedophilia to be destigmatized in their classes.

I view it similar to racism. People should be allowed to hold racist views, and to express them privately. The fact that an employee holds a racist view shouldn't be grounds all by itself for dismissal. But... the instant that person expresses a racist view while actively on the job, or in a way that implies their view is shared by their employer... that's a different matter altogether.
 
It’s not that kind of destigmatizing (as in all the way around to ‘hey there’s nothing wrong with that’) it’s the disease kind (as in ‘hey that’s a condition society shouldn’t be so judgemental of that you can never speak up to say you need help dealing with it’).

Think of the various eras of ‘can’t let anyone find out you have a scary STD’ type of context as far as individual and societal harm there. It’s not that people are trying to normalize having or spreading STD’s. Just destigmatize enough that you’re not afraid you’re ruined if anyone finds out you’ve got it, so you can safely seek treatment.

ETA: As close as it gets to ‘it’s ok’ is the same sort of thing as telling someone with say a compulsive gambling problem that they aren’t, personally, a hopeless disgusting finance-destroying monster because their brain is stuck on ‘bet again!!’ though they do need help in making sure they don’t have access to the family savings account.
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
It’s not that kind of destigmatizing (as in all the way around to ‘hey there’s nothing wrong with that’) it’s the disease kind (as in ‘hey that’s a condition society shouldn’t be so judgemental of that you can never speak up to say you need help dealing with it’).

Think of the various eras of ‘can’t let anyone find out you have a scary STD’ type of context as far as individual and societal harm there. It’s not that people are trying to normalize having or spreading STD’s. Just destigmatize enough that you’re not afraid you’re ruined if anyone finds out you’ve got it, so you can safely seek treatment.

ETA: As close as it gets to ‘it’s ok’ is the same sort of thing as telling someone with say a compulsive gambling problem that they aren’t, personally, a hopeless disgusting finance-destroying monster because their brain is stuck on ‘bet again!!’ though they do need help in making sure they don’t have access to the family savings account.
Click to expand...

Well, I think there's a rather obvious difference here that gets glossed over. The "Destigmatize Pedophilia" groups, such as Prostasia, advocate for the availability of child sex dolls and animated or digital imagery of child pornography as "treatment" to divert the attraction to children away from actual kids. Jumping on your compulsive gambling analogy, that would be like advocating that people with a gambling problem should have access to online gambling games that don't use real money in order to mitigate their problem.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Jumping on your compulsive gambling analogy, that would be like advocating that people with a gambling problem should have access to online gambling games that don't use real money in order to mitigate their problem.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't that be a good move, assuming that the online games could be funded with adverts instead of user fees?
 
d4m10n said:
Why wouldn't that be a good move, assuming that the online games could be funded with adverts instead of user fees?
Click to expand...

You're reinforcing and indulging the compulsive behavior, rather than mitigating and controlling it. You're encouraging the person to continue engaging in the behavior that is the problem, just masking them from the harm.

Kind of like having a kid with serious anger problems who keeps beating up their younger sibling... so you give both of them pads and soft gloves so the older one can continue to beat their sibling, but just don't do any damage. It doesn't address the behavior though.
 
If there’s no effective way to alter the behavior then giving them a way to mitigate the damage the behavior causes seems rational, as distasteful as that may be at times.
 
There are ways to alter the behavior, which is what psychological treatment for paraphilias already does. The most common ones are cognitive behavioral therapy and antiandrogens. There are other, less common methods to alter behavior... but none of them involve indulging the behavior that is the core problem.
 
Emily's Cat said:
There are other, less common methods to alter behavior... but none of them involve indulging the behavior that is the core problem.
Click to expand...
I feel like you may be conflating behaviours which are done in private with behaviours which involve and harm other people.

That said, which specific behaviours did the prof in question encourage which merit cancellation?
 
Emily's Cat said:
There are ways to alter the behavior, which is what psychological treatment for paraphilias already does. The most common ones are cognitive behavioral therapy and antiandrogens. There are other, less common methods to alter behavior... but none of them involve indulging the behavior that is the core problem.
Click to expand...

You suggest chemical castration as the reasonable, humane alternative.
 
d4m10n said:
I feel like you may be conflating behaviours which are done in private with behaviours which involve and harm other people.

That said, which specific behaviours did the prof in question encourage which merit cancellation?
Click to expand...

IIRC, their position advocates for the use of child-surrogates for sexual satiation among people with pedophilia.

Were that position expressed only from a personal perspective, I would object to their removal (with distaste), but they presented this as I understand it as classroom material in their curriculum. At which point, I think it's reasonable for the school to decide that this is not an advocacy position they wish to be part of their educational curricula.
 
digger said:
You suggest chemical castration as the reasonable, humane alternative.
Click to expand...

No, I did not. Anti-androgens are frequently used with a wide variety of paraphilias to reduce the sexual urge, not to completely eliminate it. The objective is to reduce the urge to a manageable level, where the individual is able to override their desires and behave in a non-harmful (to them or others) fashion.

I would only support chemical castration for convicted sex offenders who are likely to re-offend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom