Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[Lplus]

Because....you said it did.

eta: Read the thread. There isn't even a consensus on what cancel culture is, whether it's a new phenomenon, or what counts. That you think this spammed link is a perfect example of something shows that you are already prejudiced to believe that cancel culture exists, and that you know what counts as cancel culture.

But since you appear to refuse to accept cancel culture exists at all, your views on cancel culture are irrelevant.

 

[wareyin]

But since you appear to refuse to accept cancel culture exists at all, your views on cancel culture are irrelevant.

Brilliant reasoning. The only way your views on a subject can have relevance is if you accept the premise. You can't talk about the Christian God unless you already accept that that God exists. Your views on ghosts are irrelevant unless you've already decided that they exist.

 

[Lplus]

Brilliant reasoning. The only way your views on a subject can have relevance is if you accept the premise. You can't talk about the Christian God unless you already accept that that God exists. Your views on ghosts are irrelevant unless you've already decided that they exist.

Well, apart from saying "there's no such thing" how else can you contribute to the discussion of a subject if you don't accept that subject exists?

 

[johnny karate]

But since you appear to refuse to accept cancel culture exists at all, your views on cancel culture are irrelevant.

Oh good, someone finally willing to articulate what "cancel culture" is and why it's a problem we should all be concerned about.

You have the floor.

 

[wareyin]

Well, apart from saying "there's no such thing" how else can you contribute to the discussion of a subject if you don't accept that subject exists?

Perhaps by trying to nudge those who have uncritically accepted a premise into examining what they believe and why?

Telling people that unless they agree that ghosts exist, they can't discuss how your example of a haunted water faucet is not actually totally proof of the spirit realm is just a really uncritical way to think. I mean, if all you want is a circle jerk of gullible rubes all telling each other they're right, how exactly is that contributing to a discussion?

 

[smartcooky]

Spammer continues to attempt to get people to listen to a podcast he can't give the details on, explain any points made, or give any other reason to listen to it other than because the spammer himself recommends it.

To be fair, when someone posts a link, I would prefer to listen to, watch or read the content of the link myself first, and then discuss what's in it. There is little I find more bloody annoying than sitting in a room watching a documentary someone has recommended, or reading an article someone has given me, and having that same someone trying to give me a running commentary on what I am trying watch or read. I just want to tell them to shut the **** up!

 

[Lplus]

Perhaps by trying to nudge those who have uncritically accepted a premise into examining what they believe and why?

Telling people that unless they agree that ghosts exist, they can't discuss how your example of a haunted water faucet is not actually totally proof of the spirit realm is just a really uncritical way to think. I mean, if all you want is a circle jerk of gullible rubes all telling each other they're right, how exactly is that contributing to a discussion?

That isn't discussing the subject, that's just pointing out your disbelief in the subject. Fine for the first time, but it gets really old after a while.

To be fair, when someone posts a link, I would prefer to listen to, watch or read the content of the link myself first, and then discuss what's in it. There is little I find more bloody annoying than sitting in a room watching a documentary someone has recommended, or reading an article someone has given me, and having that same someone trying to give me a running commentary on what I am trying watch or read. I just want to tell them to shut the **** up!

At least you are prepared to look at the article/podcast/whatever. It may or may not agree with any previous prejudices you may have, but you aren't afraid to find out.

 

[wareyin]

That isn't discussing the subject, that's just pointing out your disbelief in the subject. Fine for the first time, but it gets really old after a while.

Nonsense. We're discussing your belief in the subject, and why you have it, and why you might have things wrong. The discussion is you (well, actually d4m10n since this was originally his right wing crisis du jour) trying to convince skeptics that this is even a thing, not people that you haven't convinced explaining to you over and over that your evidence is weak at best and that there are better explanations for your haunted faucet than ghosts.

 

[wareyin]

To be fair, when someone posts a link, I would prefer to listen to, watch or read the content of the link myself first, and then discuss what's in it. There is little I find more bloody annoying than sitting in a room watching a documentary someone has recommended, or reading an article someone has given me, and having that same someone trying to give me a running commentary on what I am trying watch or read. I just want to tell them to shut the **** up!

There's a vast gulf between someone sitting next to you giving a running commentary on a video you're watching and someone who recommends you watch a video but he doesn't know what goes on in the video or why you should watch it.

 

[d4m10n]

I've read the link to a written discussion of the subject in post #2492. I think it's a perfect example of cancel culture - what do you think?

I'd say it's less than perfect, but only because of the death threats. Some people think that those are an extension of the angry mob mentality behind "cancel culture" but others would say that illegal threats go beyond what we generally mean to encompass by the phrase, that is, exercise of legitimate speech to prevent someone else from having some particular platform.

To be fair, when someone posts a link, I would prefer to listen to, watch or read the content of the link myself first, and then discuss what's in it.

This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable approach. A less reasonable approach might be to characterize the link as spam, while having no idea what it's actually about.

(well, actually d4m10n since this was originally his right wing crisis du jour)

Here follows a list of all the right wing sources I've cited in my discussion of cancel culture:

 

[johnny karate]

Here follows a list of all the right wing sources I've cited in my discussion of cancel culture:

Here's you citing Libs of TikTok:

#SummerCancellation season is in full swing.

Back in mid-June, a handful of workers at Mina's World rose up to demand the means of production from the owners of the café (all of whom are women of colour) and to publicly shame them for various offenses against social justice.

Two of the owners made a couple of (hostage style) videos asking for forgiveness and understanding. Here is one of them:

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1544485710605848577

The third owner (evidently the main backer) eventually had enough of the workers of Mina's World uniting against her and decided to pull out of the venture. As of early this month, Mina's World has permanently closed.

An interesting overlap between this cancellation and the end of Reply All is that both of them happened at the intersection of social justice, internet culture, and Bon Appetit.

How embarrassing for you.

 

[d4m10n]

Here's you citing Libs of TikTok

Those videos were originally posted and later deleted from the Mina's World instagram feed, which was decidedly pro-social justice. Not a right wing source.

 

[johnny karate]

Those videos were originally posted and later deleted from the Mina's World instagram feed, which was decidedly pro-social justice. Not a right wing source.

You cited Libs of TikTok. Libs of TikTok is right wing. Hardcore right wing.

You even used the same description of the video by calling it "hostage style".

So you didn't just cite a hardcore right wing source, you also quoted them.

 

[wareyin]

This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable approach. A less reasonable approach might be to characterize the link as spam, while having no idea what it's actually about.

Spammer pretends to get upset that people won't click on the links he refuses to explain or summarize because, like all spammers, the goal is to get the credible to click the link and not to convince anyone even slightly skeptical of his position.

Here follows a list of all the right wing sources I've cited in my discussion of cancel culture:

Thanks to johnny karate for reminding you of a right wing source you cited. I'm sure that your omission was simply an honest case of you not recalling what you had posted, as that does happen quite a lot for you.

 

[d4m10n]

You cited Libs of TikTok.

No, I cited the Mina's World Instagram feed, where I originally watched both videos. It so happens that LibsOfTikTok archived the video, but they are not the source of the video, obviously. To my knowledge, no other live copies have been posted.

You even used the same description of the video by calling it "hostage style".

Watch the video for yourself and tell us if they seem under duress.

Spammer pretends to get upset that people won't click on the links he refuses to explain or summarize because, like all spammers, the goal is to get the credible to click the link and not to convince anyone even slightly skeptical of his position.

Brief summary of every cancel court segment follows:

• Mike Pesca briefly recounts who is (allegedly) being cancelled and why.
• Virginia Heffernan (progressive commentator) explains whether she thinks it was a morally justifiable cancellation or not
• Jamie Kirchick (conservative commentator) explains whether he thinks it was a morally justifiable cancellation or not
• Mike Pesca (centrist commentator) weighs in on whether he thinks it was a morally justifiable cancellation or not

The most recent episode of cancel court may be found here:
https://player.fm/series/not-even-m...ancel-court-james-webb-space-telescope?t=2015

Oddly enough, it's about James E. Webb and the Lavender Scare^WP, the latter of which is a fine example of an irrational culture of cancellation.

 

[johnny karate]

No, I cited the Mina's World Instagram feed, where I originally watched both videos. It so happens that LibsOfTikTok archived the video, but they are not the source of the video, obviously. To my knowledge, no other live copies have been posted.

Watch the video for yourself and tell us if they seem under duress.

You directly linked to the Libs of TikTok Twitter account.

They are right wing.

These two facts are indisputable.

Just take the L and move on.

 

[d4m10n]

You directly linked to the Libs of TikTok Twitter account.

I linked to a copy of a video which no longer existed anywhere else, which I'd originally seen on a very pro-social justice Instagram feed. It is incredibly disingenuous to suggest that somehow counts as parroting right wing ideas, since there was literally no other way to share the video.

In much more recent cancellation news, consider this article from a right wing rag called The New York Times:
A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job. https://nyti.ms/3Xe7oZH

(Hopefully, Libs of TikTok won't reshare it.)

 

[johnny karate]

I linked to a copy of a video which no longer existed anywhere else, which I'd originally seen on a very pro-social justice Instagram feed. It is incredibly disingenuous to suggest that somehow counts as parroting right wing ideas, since there was literally no other way to share the video.

You cited a right wing source and then claimed you don’t cite right wing sources.

No post hoc rationalization changes that.

In much more recent cancellation news, consider this article from a right wing rag called The New York Times:
A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job. https://nyti.ms/3Xe7oZH

(Hopefully, Libs of TikTok won't reshare it.)

This article is behind a paywall but I read about it elsewhere. Seems like a professor did not get their contract renewed for a silly reason. Pretty much the entire academic community has come out in support of the professor and has been scathingly critical of the school administration. The college could also lose its accreditation as a result.

So just to be clear: Who are you saying got “cancelled”? The professor? Or the college?

 

[Cain]

In much more recent cancellation news, consider this article from a right wing rag called The New York Times:
A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job. https://nyti.ms/3Xe7oZH

This institution is increasingly dependent upon Muslim customers. Let the free market should decide. As with Gina Carano, the instructor was between contracts (adjuncts are always between contracts), and the university simply decided not to renew. A big deal was made about this distinction with hardly any difference up-thread.

We have a professor who is by all appearances rather progressive; her teaching is pedagogically sound, and she gave multiple warnings. The student subscribes to a mainstream (but conservative) interpretation of Islam and didn't want a warning; she wanted doctrinal conformity.

Craven administrators are all too happy to bend to consumer demands using the latest fashionable pretext. "It's not about gutting standards; it's about being 'equitable.'" In this case, they're throwing contingent labor under the bus because of "hate speech."

From the article:

Mark Berkson, a religion professor at Hamline, raised his hand.

“When you say, ‘Trust Muslims on Islamophobia,’” Berkson asked, “what does one do when the Islamic community itself is divided on an issue? Because there are many Muslim scholars and experts and art historians who do not believe that this was Islamophobic.”

Hussein responded that there were marginal and extremist voices on any issue. “You can teach a whole class about why Hitler was good,” Hussein said.

During the exchange, Baker, the department head, and Everett, the administrator, separately walked up to the religion professor, put their hands on his shoulders and said this was not the time to raise these concerns, Berkson said in an interview.

But Berkson, who said he was a strong supporter of campus diversity, said he felt compelled to speak up.

“We were being asked to accept, without questioning, that what our colleague did — teaching an Islamic art masterpiece in a class on art history after having given multiple warnings — was somehow equivalent to mosque vandalism and violence against Muslims and hate speech,” Berkson said. “That is what I could not stand.”

 

[Graham2001]

Another right-wing publication 'The Guardian' published an Op-ed on this particular story, it points out that what the Hamline administrators have done in this case is entered into a dispute within Islam and put the thumb down on the scale in favor of one view.

The actions of Hamline University are a threat not just to academic freedom but to religious freedom, too. They implicitly disavow the variety of traditions that constitute Islam and condemn those traditions as in some sense so bigoted that they cannot be shown in a class on Islamic art history. University bureaucrats are, as non-Muslims, taking part in a theological debate within Islam and siding with the extremists.

That is why, the historian Amna Khalid observes, it is as a Muslim she is most offended by Hamline’s actions that have “flattened the rich history and diversity of Islamic thought” and “privileged a most extreme and conservative Muslim point of view”. In an age in which there are demands for the syllabus to be “decolonised”, she adds, “Hamline’s position is a kind of arch-imperialism, reinforcing a monolithic image of Muslims propounded by the cult of authentic Islam”.

Perhaps the most damaging aspect of Hamline’s action is the use of the language of diversity to eviscerate the very meaning of diversity. This is an issue not confined to Hamline. Too many people today demand that we respect the diversity of society, but fail to see the diversity of minority communities in those societies. As a result, progressive voices often get dismissed as not being authentic, while the most conservative figures become celebrated as the true embodiment of their communities.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ed-by-muslims-is-deemed-offensive-but-to-whom


A staffer for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has supplied an op-ed in another newspaper which points out that the "respect for the observant Muslim students in that classroom should have superseded academic freedom" remark opens up a whole can of worms related to 'blasphemy' in general.

But Hamline's leaders didn't just create a chilling effect among their entire community. Even worse, the university appeared to endorse restricting academic freedom essentially under the guise of a ban on blasphemy — meaning sacrilege, insult, or offense against religions and religious figures.
Lamenting the "harm" the image caused in a letter to the campus, the university's president and associate vice president for inclusive excellence wrote that "respect for the observant Muslim students in that classroom should have superseded academic freedom" in this situation, "where an image forbidden for Muslims to look upon was projected on a screen and left for many minutes."


"Academic freedom is very important," the administrators added, "but it does not have to come at the expense of care and decency toward others."


A blasphemy exception to academic freedom, which this ultimately would be, isn't a reasonable and narrow cutout that would protect students from perceived harm. Rather, it would be a Pandora's box: Once opened, there would be no stopping the justifications to censor that would flow from it. Just take a cursory look at what constitutes religious offense around the world today.

https://www.startribune.com/banning-blasphemy-hamline-cancels-academic-freedom/600241100/