Cancel Culture

carvajal

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
11,053
Location
Spain
Supports
Real Madrid
Liberalism is the ancestor of liberal humanism. It's neither right nor left wing. Republicans and Democrats are both liberals to some degree. It's an ethos of equality but based on enlightenment ideals of individual liberty rather than Marxist ideals of class struggle. The Tory goverments have been liberal in their legalisation of gay marriage which is neither a left or right wing proposal. It's a liberal proposal centred on identity politics.

Left-wing politics takes class, defined economically, above individual identites. Being the broadest possible mode of unification among the same subset of disenfranchised, it seeks to build a class consciousness over and above any identity-based consciousness which it views as both liberal and factional. Hillary Clinton is a liberal, but she isn't left wing. Sanders is left wing but is also liberal. Mitch McConnell is liberal but is clearly not left wing.

The difference is subtle but can best be seen by a comparison of Labour in the 1970s with Labour as of today. One was left wing with liberal tendencies the other is liberal and sometimes has a left wing policy, like nationalising the rail industry or establishing the right of refusal for co-ops.

The main point is the right has embraced identity politics as much, maybe moreso, than the left, because it allies neatly with capitalism.
Good and concise explanation. I think a lot of people -at least where I live- identify the word liberalism only with economic liberalism and the ideas of liberalism that you describe, more and more added to the program of the left, because they believe it or because they need it electorally, and even at the extremes taking over in a certain way those social conquests.

It's like a gay at the pride party with a Che Guevara t-shirt
 

Moby

Dick
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
51,358
Location
Barcelona, Catalunya
Person A (black-woman) tweets that 'Google DeepMind gave a lecture in topic X, and they did not cite my paper despite that I did it while I was doing an internship there. This is only because I am a Black Woman. The paper has only 5 citations, would this have happened if I was a white male?' (I did not do a verbatim quote)

The tweet gets hundreds of likes. Including from some very influential people I know, and one whom I work with (though not under her directions, but the same company and she has a lot of influence). Everyone is tweeting on her support, saying how racists Google are, how she has been mistreated etc.

Person B tweets that he has read her paper, and there was nothing spectacular about it, and the results were poor (disclaimer: I checked the paper too, it looked okay while the results were poor). Obviously he gets attacked from everyone calling him a racist, and gets character-assassinated without anyone mentioning why his comment was wrong, except one who sais that the results were IMPRESSIVE (honestly, they were not).

I tweet to her that maybe the reason why the paper has not been cited in that lecture is that the paper is not peer-reviewed yet. I also mention that in that topic there are a few hundred published papers in top venues (including one from me, and well, I am a white man) who did not get cited. There are also several thousand unpublished (arxiv-only, same category as hers) papers that did not make the lecture for obvious reasons. In fact, there were only around 35 cited papers (a few from the authors). Considering that the lecture covered 6 years of arguably the hottest topic on machine learning, I say that any paper could have not been cited, and the likelihood of an unpublished paper getting cited was extremely low, without needing racism and sexism motivation.

A few people like my tweets, but more criticize me and/or like the tweets that criticize me. I get attacked for doing gaslighting from someone influential on the field (though her technical contribution on the field is very low - similar to mine actually - but she founded an organization about black people on AI which made her in words of many 'one of AI leading researchers' and even made a late-night TV show). I repeat she has two top-tier papers (same as me). Someone who is considered one of the leading scholars has from dozens to hundreds.

Essentially it was a mess. Later she tweeted that the duo who made the lecture, called her to apologize. Essentially, she bullied people to admit that they were racists/sexists with the only crime they did was not citing one of the thousands random papers which has yet to be accepted in a venue despite having been online for almost a year. As I said, they did not cite thousands unpublished and hundreds published (including mine and many people I know).

I don't mind someone using the current wave to progress her career. It is scummy, but it is the way it is, and has happened always. What I do mind though, is the people actually supporting this behavior. Not the idiots who are not even in the field and who were competing who is the most woke person there (one of them said that he was having problems on life, and then read her paper and so it became clear what is he is gonna do in the future). Whom I cannot stand are the high-influential people who are actively supporting this shameless political agenda. A few cases:

- The person I work with who liked all her tweets. She has 2 papers this year in the same topic. They do not cite that particular paper (why? because they shouldn't).
- Head of Google Research tweets on support of her.
- Very high person in Google Research posts on Facebook about how that post opened his eyes about the problems people like her has. An influential professor from Berkeley (who did not know circumstances) posts that Machine Learning community cites less papers than Computer Vision community, so this problems are caused cause of that. Of course, he gets immediately attacked, telling him how his community is even worse, and how this is a specific problem for black and women. He backtracks, cause you know, people have a career to keep.
- Influential professor of Cambridge has a series of tweets on support of that paper, and how awesome it is and how people should cite papers of black women.
- Influential DeepMind scientist (and Oxford university) tweets about diversity and mentions this case.

Now, someone might think that you know, it is okay. She might be a discriminated person and given her some advantage might help someone like her. Except that:
a) actually she is not. She is at the end of her PhD at a top 10 university in US.
b) her advisor (white guy) is a top 10 person on the field, and he was in that paper too.
c) She had done 4 internships in Google, Facebook and Microsoft.
d) She has a pretty good career so far, with multiple highly-cited other papers.

By every definition, she is a privileged person (though I think that she is smart too from her papers). However what she did was a shameless act of using politics to advance her scientific career, and she was supported from people who matter, with anyone else being attacked.

Not long ago, Chief Scientist of Facebook had to leave Twitter cause of the attacks he was getting for the crime that he had a different scientific opinion to someone (same someone who attacked me). It has gone beyond any control and is getting worse.
That's pretty weird.
 

fergieisold

New Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
7,122
Location
Saddleworth (home) Manchester (work)
I would have seen that Fawlty Towers episode when it aired and I don't remember it. But who watches it anymore anyway? It's pretty dated and I'd think nobody under 60 is looking for it. Nobody over 60 knows how to use iPlayer anyway.

I expect channels like DaveTV shows a lot of old repeats that have some dodgy bits in them.
It's a British classic! It's still really popular even for my age group (early 30s)...maybe it's died a bit for younger people but I don't think some of the comedy in it will ever age. Particularly the relationship between basil and his wife :lol:
 

balaks

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
15,335
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
It appears that you can no longer express an opinion that does not conform with the current agreed societal norms without getting rounded upon and beaten until you are forced away. The old fashioned debate is finished as people won't listen to an argument any more because they get triggered instantly at the very notion somebody might not conform to what they view as right. It's quite depressing. I have had an experience of it recently on twitter when I made an anti-Corbyn comment (I think he was an utter disaster for Labour and the country) and was instantly bombarded by Corbyn supporters all jumping on me instantly some of which was quite aggressive and almost all extremely rude and insensitive. How dare I have a different opinion than them on someone. The irony is that if I lived in England I would vote Labour and I detest the Tories but I am also able to think Corbyn was dreadful at the same time. This appears to be lost on these guys.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
It appears that you can no longer express an opinion that does not conform with the current agreed societal norms without getting rounded upon and beaten until you are forced away. The old fashioned debate is finished as people won't listen to an argument any more because they get triggered instantly at the very notion somebody might not conform to what they view as right. It's quite depressing. I have had an experience of it recently on twitter when I made an anti-Corbyn comment (I think he was an utter disaster for Labour and the country) and was instantly bombarded by Corbyn supporters all jumping on me instantly some of which was quite aggressive and almost all extremely rude and insensitive. How dare I have a different opinion than them on someone. The irony is that if I lived in England I would vote Labour and I detest the Tories but I am also able to think Corbyn was dreadful at the same time. This appears to be lost on these guys.
Which old fashioned debate? People are seemingly reinventing history in the past people would toe the line and not talk much about societal issues and that was within homogenous communities, that's why most social causes took an eternity to get fixed. You think that women were allowed to debate freely and people were listening during the hundreds of years it took them to get equal rights or not be reduced to raising children and cook for their husbands?
 

balaks

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
15,335
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
Which old fashioned debate? People are seemingly reinventing history in the past people would toe the line and not talk much about societal issues and that was within homogenous communities, that's why most social causes took an eternity to get fixed. You think that women were allowed to debate freely and people were listening during the hundreds of years it took them to get equal rights or not be reduced to raising children and cook for their husbands?
What I meant was that it appears you are no longer able to have a discussion with people about an issue that is a bit controversial because you get jumped for even daring to suggest there may be another point of view. It is stifling debate in my view - I'm not afraid of people who disagree with my views and I'm always happy to discuss their views with them respectfully and challenge them if I feel the need to - that appears to be almost impossible in the current climate.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
What I meant was that it appears you are no longer able to have a discussion with people about an issue that is a bit controversial because you get jumped for even daring to suggest there may be another point of view. It is stifling debate in my view - I'm not afraid of people who disagree with my views and I'm always happy to discuss their views and challenge them if I want to - that appears to be almost impossible in the current climate.
We are more likely to talk about controversial topics today than in the past, in the past you wouldn't even have a platform, Radios and the TV channels would only discuss mainstream vanilla topics. The reason you see more disagreements today is because we have access to large amount of different opinions that are freely expressed on almost all type of platforms. The issue is that the people expressing controversial opinions haven't realized that when they expressed them, a large amount of people will judge these opinions and in most cases controversial opinions are controversial for a good reason and the mass will tell you why.

The problem is that nowadays you can easily express your opinions to a wide audience and that wide audience can easily tell you to wind your neck in. When in the past you couldn't easily access a wide audience and even if you did, that audience had next to no way to express his opinion, it wasn't a debate, it was more often than not a monologue.
 

balaks

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
15,335
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
We are more likely to talk about controversial topics today than in the past, in the past you wouldn't even have a platform, Radios and the TV channels would only discuss mainstream vanilla topics. The reason you see more disagreements today is because we have access to large amount of different opinions that are freely expressed on almost all type of platforms. The issue is that the people expressing controversial opinions haven't realized that when they expressed them, a large amount of people will judge these opinions and in most cases controversial opinions are controversial for a good reason and the mass will tell you why.

The problem is that nowadays you can easily express your opinions to a wide audience and that wide audience can easily tell you to wind your neck in. When in the past you couldn't easily access a wide audience and even if you did, that audience had next to no way to express his opinion, it wasn't a debate, it was more often than not a monologue.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with my point of view on a subject - what I have a problem with is people automatically going on the attack and a mob jumping on you in an attempt to dismiss and/or suppress your view without giving you an opportunity to discuss or debate an opinion. The people that do this have no interest in discussing anything at all and instead are black and white in their own views and believe that anybody who disagrees with their particular world view are not only wrong but are evil and should be destroyed (figuratively speaking). Screw those people I say.
 

BobbyManc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
7,750
Location
The Wall
Supports
Man City
It appears that you can no longer express an opinion that does not conform with the current agreed societal norms without getting rounded upon and beaten until you are forced away. The old fashioned debate is finished as people won't listen to an argument any more because they get triggered instantly at the very notion somebody might not conform to what they view as right. It's quite depressing. I have had an experience of it recently on twitter when I made an anti-Corbyn comment (I think he was an utter disaster for Labour and the country) and was instantly bombarded by Corbyn supporters all jumping on me instantly some of which was quite aggressive and almost all extremely rude and insensitive. How dare I have a different opinion than them on someone. The irony is that if I lived in England I would vote Labour and I detest the Tories but I am also able to think Corbyn was dreadful at the same time. This appears to be lost on these guys.
Did you see the treatment Corbyn and his supporters were subjected to in the mainstream media? Whatever you think of him, the idea it was opponents of Corbyn who were criticised and silenced, as opposed to handed a platform and their voice amplified, is laughable and completely at odds with reality.

This is what irks about me about this hysteria about ‘cancel culture’. The people and institutions which actually wield power are virtually all right-wing. Think back to McCarthyism - now that’s really ‘cancelling’ people. Imagine being an open socialist or communist and trying to get a high-profile role in the media or politics. It’s been virtually unthinkable and it’s only in recent years that Corbynism and Sanders have managed to even slightly shift debate. Whereas talentless right-wing grifters can forge lucrative careers out of causing outrage and actually thrive on the basis of antagonising this all-powerful ‘cancel culture’ that remarkably fails to cancel them. Laurence Fox is an obvious example. Cried about how he is silenced - while on a mainstream BBC platform - and now I can’t go a day on social media without being reminded of his existence and his incessant laments of how he is persecuted and cancelled at every turn.

He’s symptomatic of this strange phenomenon whereby the people who share the prevailing ideologies and values of those in power like to perceive of themselves as victims and on the fringes of society - with ‘cancel culture’ at the forefront of their attempts to forge this identity of victimhood.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
I have no problem with people disagreeing with my point of view on a subject - what I have a problem with is people automatically going on the attack and a mob jumping on you in an attempt to dismiss and/or suppress your view without giving you an opportunity to discuss or debate an opinion. The people that do this have no interest in discussing anything at all and instead are black and white in their own views and believe that anybody who disagrees with their particular world view are not only wrong but are evil and should be destroyed (figuratively speaking). Screw those people I say.
But not everything is debatable or at least worth debating, not every subject should be fully debated everytime someone expresses an opinion that has been already discussed profusely. There is a reason you specifically mentioned controversial subjects, these subjects didn't become controversial without debates and thinking, they are controversial because a thought process occurred and when you express that controversial opinion while knowing that it's controversial you are supposed to be aware of the thought process that led to this conclusion.
To me it reads like you are demanding that people indulge controversial opinions that are expressed without care for the overall intellectual context. That every topic and its conclusions should be rebooted everytime someone decides to open his mouth without giving a deep thinking about the subject they are talking about.

To me that's the fastest way to an idiocracy.
 

balaks

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
15,335
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
Did you see the treatment Corbyn and his supporters were subjected to in the mainstream media? Whatever you think of him, the idea it was opponents of Corbyn who were criticised and silenced, as opposed to handed a platform and their voice amplified, is laughable and completely at odds with reality.

This is what irks about me about this hysteria about ‘cancel culture’. The people and institutions which actually wield power are virtually all right-wing. Think back to McCarthyism - now that’s really ‘cancelling’ people. Imagine being an open socialist or communist and trying to get a high-profile role in the media or politics. It’s been virtually unthinkable and it’s only in recent years that Corbynism and Sanders have managed to even slightly shift debate. Whereas talentless right-wing grifters can forge lucrative careers out of causing outrage and actually thrive on the basis of antagonising this all-powerful ‘cancel culture’ that remarkably fails to cancel them. Laurence Fox is an obvious example. Cried about how he is silenced - while on a mainstream BBC platform - and now I can’t go a day on social media without being reminded of his existence and his incessant laments of how he is persecuted and cancelled at every turn.

He’s symptomatic of this strange phenomenon whereby the people who share the prevailing ideologies and values of those in power like to perceive of themselves as victims and on the fringes of society - with ‘cancel culture’ at the forefront of their attempts to forge this identity of victimhood.
I'm talking about my own experience. I'm centre-left in my views and generally support Labour but because I didn't think Corbyn was up to much I get rounded upon as if I were Maggie Thatcher reincarnated.
 

balaks

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
15,335
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
But not everything is debatable or at least worth debating, not every subject should be fully debated everytime someone expresses an opinion that has been already discussed profusely. There is a reason you specifically mentioned controversial subjects, these subjects didn't become controversial without debates and thinking, they are controversial because a thought process occurred and when you express that controversial opinion while knowing that it's controversial you are supposed to be aware of the thought process that led to this conclusion.
To me it reads like you are demanding that people indulge controversial opinions that are expressed without care for the overall intellectual context. That every topic and its conclusions should be rebooted everytime someone decides to open his mouth without giving a deep thinking about the subject they are talking about.

To me that's the fastest way to an idiocracy.
I didn't specifically mention controversial subjects - the example I gave was my own view that Corbyn was a total disaster and the experience I had with his supporters after I expressed that view - I'd hardly call that controversial since he lost 2 elections.
 

BobbyManc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
7,750
Location
The Wall
Supports
Man City
I'm talking about my own experience. I'm centre-left in my views and generally support Labour but because I didn't think Corbyn was up to much I get rounded upon as if I were Maggie Thatcher reincarnated.
Well I’m talking about the much more substantial sphere of real life and the media and politics, not a few mean comments you might get on a football forum. What impact did that have on your life and your career?
 

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
11,532
I'm talking about my own experience. I'm centre-left in my views and generally support Labour but because I didn't think Corbyn was up to much I get rounded upon as if I were Maggie Thatcher reincarnated.
I totally see where you’re coming from with this post mate
 

balaks

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
15,335
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
Well I’m talking about the much more substantial sphere of real life and the media and politics, not a few mean comments you might get on a football forum. What impact did that have on your life and your career?
It was on twitter and the only impact it had was some irritation. However it is an example of what happens when you get a mob willing to throw themselves onto anybody who they disagree with in a pretty aggressive and rude way - I can't imagine what it would be like to be a celeb or somebody with influence these days as it would be a bloody mine field out there with you fearing for your career every time you make any sort of view known.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
I didn't specifically mention controversial subjects - the example I gave was my own view that Corbyn was a total disaster and the experience I had with his supporters after I expressed that view - I'd hardly call that controversial since he lost 2 elections.
But this has nothing to do with cancel culture, you simply had people disagreeing with your view. And you did mention controversial issues when I asked about what kind of old fashioned debate.

What I meant was that it appears you are no longer able to have a discussion with people about an issue that is a bit controversial because you get jumped for even daring to suggest there may be another point of view. It is stifling debate in my view - I'm not afraid of people who disagree with my views and I'm always happy to discuss their views with them respectfully and challenge them if I feel the need to - that appears to be almost impossible in the current climate.
Millions of people have expressed negative opinions about Corbyn, the press has been doing it for as long as I have been following british politics, if anything it's controversial to have something positive to say about him.
 

BobbyManc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
7,750
Location
The Wall
Supports
Man City
It was on twitter and the only impact it had was some irritation. However it is an example of what happens when you get a mob willing to throw themselves onto anybody who they disagree with in a pretty aggressive and rude way - I can't imagine what it would be like to be a celeb or somebody with influence these days as it would be a bloody mine field out there with you fearing for your career every time you make any sort of view known.
So you expressed a political opinion, people disagreed with it and you were upset at some of the comments. I mean is this supposed to be an unprecedented development? I fail to see what is significant here.
 

balaks

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
15,335
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
So you expressed a political opinion, people disagreed with it and you were upset at some of the comments. I mean is this supposed to be an unprecedented development? I fail to see what is significant here.
Just opened my eyes a bit that's all - I got pure hatred instantly from a large group of people who all went on the attack. I'm not trying to make you think it's a significant thing for anybody other than myself but just telling you about my own experience. Maybe I just need to stay off twitter. It put me off posting anything remotely controversial in the future which I guess is the point I'm trying to make.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,995
Is this girl not really a cat a though even though she identifies as one?

 

villain

Hates Beyoncé
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
14,973
He’s symptomatic of this strange phenomenon whereby the people who share the prevailing ideologies and values of those in power like to perceive of themselves as victims and on the fringes of society - with ‘cancel culture’ at the forefront of their attempts to forge this identity of victimhood.
Great post, but this part particularly? Inject it in my veins.
 

Siorac

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
23,789
Oh, it is totally left-wing. Obviously, most of the left-wing people are not part of it* (same as how most right-wing people are not racists), but those that are in cancel culture, are almost exclusively far-left wingers.

Cause you know, they have to do stuff on their life instead of finding novel ways of getting offended and bully others in Twitter for not getting offended enough.
Remember the Colin Kaepernick shitstorm? I'm sure most people taking part in that were not left wingers.

The NFL experienced an 8 percent decline in viewership in the 2016 season with the No. 1 reason, cited by 30 percent of fans in a J. D. Power survey, being the player protests.
That's a LOT of people who were almost certainly not left wingers.
 

NotThatSoph

Full Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
3,757
I don't see a big deal with either of those links you post. In the first case, Pinker has such a pattern of problematic behaviour (the first example is literally him misrepresenting research that contradicts the report's own conclusion in order to downplay racism as a factor in police brutality) that is documented there that it's hard to defend him and easy to see why he is fostering animosity against his position. It is not a petition for him to be sacked but for LSA to remove him 'from both our list of distinguished academic fellows and our list of media experts'. Is that 'cancelling' or is that not just asking one institution to clarify how its values align with an individual and if it is happy to continue to associate itself with his work? Pinker would be free to carry on in life operating exactly as he has done irrespective of LSA's decision.

Likewise, the second article is literally just a fringe petition on Change.org with 8,000 signatures asking for an award to no longer be named after a man who passed away in 1962. Is that 'cancelling' him? Can you even 'cancel' a man who has been dead for 58 years? Is this really the powerful ultra-left cancel culture scything down anyone who dares not align to its morally unimpeachable standards - or is it not just about 0.001% or whatever of a population spending about 30 seconds of their time to click a few things online and request an award be named after a deceased person of their choice. I think even the tabloid press would struggle to whip up an outrage about this one.
This is just Pinker's career. The Blank Slate is probably one of the worst books ever written, because of all the contemporary people he rails at for being blank slatists, none of them are. They don't exist. He called John Watson and B.F. Skinner blank slatists, that's so stupid that he just has to be lying, it's almost impressive how he gets away with it.

You didn't mention if, but from the petition the way he tried to whitewash Bernhard Goetz is probably the most disgusting example of all the times he downplays racism. Maybe not the most consequential one, since it's just a single case instead of racism generally, but it's just so visceral and blatant.

And to just make fun of Pinker a bit. Cancel culture happens online, so is there any issues with it? That is, after all, how Pinker defended Epstein when he was accused of soliciting a minor. Sure, he might not have known that it was Epstein, but he knew that he was defending a child rapist when he helped his friend Alan Dershowitz who is credibly accused of the same crime. When lawyers defend horrible people to the best of their ability, even if that includes doing disgusting things, the rationale is that lawyers have a duty to do so because of ideals and justice. Linguists have no such duty, Pinker did this because he wanted to.

Or, maybe we could tell Pinker that cancel culture is like sexual harassment, that way he won't care.

In any case, I hope millionaire Harvard professor and best selling author Steven Pinker will survive the horrible consequences of cancel culture, which might possibly get him removed from a list nobody had even heard of a week ago. Truly a pressing issue of our time.

If this is cancel culture, what is the reaction, outrage porn?
 
Last edited:

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
I can't help but feel that J.K. Rowling isn't helping herself with irritating and sarcastic responses like this (tweeted to someone who now regrets signing the 'cancel culture' letter):
J.K. Rowling said:
You’re still following me, Jennifer. Be sure to publicly repent of your association with Goody Rowling before unfollowing and volunteer to operate the ducking stool next time, as penance.
 

jeff_goldblum

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
3,917
Right-wing politics, and increasingly centrist politics, is characterised by a bizarre victim complex where people whose views are dominant in almost every sphere of public life (including politics) believe that they are an embattled minority because they occasionally come across someone who disagrees with them or points out that their rhetoric is dangerous, harmful or inaccurate (usually a left-leaning celebrity or strangers on twitter).
 

KirkDuyt

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
24,444
Location
Dutchland
Supports
Feyenoord
Is this girl not really a cat a though even though she identifies as one?

Not sure if serious, but the gender issue stems from the fact that people see gender as a social construct rather than a scientific fact.

Calling species a social construct is a bit of a stretch (at least for now).
 

decorativeed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
12,330
Location
Tameside
What I meant was that it appears you are no longer able to have a discussion with people about an issue that is a bit controversial because you get jumped for even daring to suggest there may be another point of view. It is stifling debate in my view - I'm not afraid of people who disagree with my views and I'm always happy to discuss their views with them respectfully and challenge them if I feel the need to - that appears to be almost impossible in the current climate.
I think the main issue is that people such as yourself (and millions of others) want to have these debates or make these points using a medium that is not designed for it. Social media means you're not just speaking with your friends and family who have some background information on what you are like as a person and what your values are. You are instead talking to masses of people who do not know anything about you other than the contents of your posts, and who feel free to be reactionary in a way which they would not do in a face-to-face environment. The word limits also do not allow for nuanced debate.

I know I've decried social media for serving up billions of useless images of people's lunch, but it's much more cut out for that sort of content than it is for rational discourses and exchanges of ideas.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,995
Not sure if serious, but the gender issue stems from the fact that people see gender as a social construct rather than a scientific fact.

Calling species a social construct is a bit of a stretch (at least for now).
Not really serious.
 

balaks

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
15,335
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
I think the main issue is that people such as yourself (and millions of others) want to have these debates or make these points using a medium that is not designed for it. Social media means you're not just speaking with your friends and family who have some background information on what you are like as a person and what your values are. You are instead talking to masses of people who do not know anything about you other than the contents of your posts, and who feel free to be reactionary in a way which they would not do in a face-to-face environment. The word limits also do not allow for nuanced debate.

I know I've decried social media for serving up billions of useless images of people's lunch, but it's much more cut out for that sort of content than it is for rational discourses and exchanges of ideas.
Yeah you are spot on with that.
 

FlawlessThaw

most 'know it all' poster
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
29,599
I can't help but feel that J.K. Rowling isn't helping herself with irritating and sarcastic responses like this (tweeted to someone who now regrets signing the 'cancel culture' letter):
She isn't helping herself. I don't think her views are invalid but her victim mentality on this is really not helping.
 

BobbyManc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
7,750
Location
The Wall
Supports
Man City
This is just Pinker's career. The Blank Slate is probably one of the worst books ever written, because of all the contemporary people he rails at for being blank slatists, none of them are. They don't exist. He called John Watson and B.F. Skinner blank slatists, that's so stupid that he just has to be lying, it's almost impressive how he gets away with it.

You didn't mention if, but from the petition the way he tried to whitewash Bernhard Goetz is probably the most disgusting example of all the times he downplays racism. Maybe not the most consequential one, since it's just a single case instead of racism generally, but it's just so visceral and blatant.
Thanks for sharing that, I’m not particularly familiar with Pinker’s work aside from a few controversies I’ve heard about. Reminds me of Jordan Peterson (one of the most insufferable right-wing poster boys out there) and his constant railing against ‘postmodern Neo-Marxists’. Zizek pulled him up on this during a debate, asking him what does he mean and who are these supposed postmodern Neo-Marxists. As you’d expect, Peterson rambled without really answering it as he knows he’s a fraud and he couldn’t blag his way out of it against an expert. There’s a trend for these right-wing academics to use words that sound intellectual to give them credibility but under scrutiny from anyone clued up about it it just collapses as the meaningless bluster that is.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
I think the main issue is that people such as yourself (and millions of others) want to have these debates or make these points using a medium that is not designed for it. Social media means you're not just speaking with your friends and family who have some background information on what you are like as a person and what your values are. You are instead talking to masses of people who do not know anything about you other than the contents of your posts, and who feel free to be reactionary in a way which they would not do in a face-to-face environment. The word limits also do not allow for nuanced debate.

I know I've decried social media for serving up billions of useless images of people's lunch, but it's much more cut out for that sort of content than it is for rational discourses and exchanges of ideas.
The caf and discussion forums are social medias, the issue is mainly with what you say not the people answering. If you make throwaway comments, you will most likely receive throwaway answers whether you are on a social media or face to face. If you elaborate and try to actually instigate a debate, people will generally try to debate with some exceptions.
 

ChaddyP

Full Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
13,852
Location
Jamaica
Not sure if serious, but the gender issue stems from the fact that people see gender as a social construct rather than a scientific fact.

Calling species a social construct is a bit of a stretch (at least for now).
Pardon my ignorance but I always thought all of this contention wasn't an issue of Gender but an issue of Sex. Gender is definitely a social construct I think most would agree with that, But is the idea of what "scientifically" is a man vs what is a woman also a social construct or is that still a stretch to be called a social construct ? (for now)
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,419
Location
London
Thanks for sharing that, I’m not particularly familiar with Pinker’s work aside from a few controversies I’ve heard about. Reminds me of Jordan Peterson (one of the most insufferable right-wing poster boys out there) and his constant railing against ‘postmodern Neo-Marxists’. Zizek pulled him up on this during a debate, asking him what does he mean and who are these supposed postmodern Neo-Marxists. As you’d expect, Peterson rambled without really answering it as he knows he’s a fraud and he couldn’t blag his way out of it against an expert. There’s a trend for these right-wing academics to use words that sound intellectual to give them credibility but under scrutiny from anyone clued up about it it just collapses as the meaningless bluster that is.
Is Jordan Peterson even right-wing? I am not talking about the caricature of Jordan Peterson given on leftist media, but more on what he really says. Any time I heard him speak (I admit, not that many times), he looked very centristic to me. In fact, I don't even think that what he said is particularly deep or analyzed well, a lot of things were simply common sense (and a lot of other things, especially when he does out of his field of research were quite wrong).

I think only in the current climate of 'if you are not fully with us, you are the enemy', Peterson can be considered right-wing poster boy.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,419
Location
London
Not sure if serious, but the gender issue stems from the fact that people see gender as a social construct rather than a scientific fact.

Calling species a social construct is a bit of a stretch (at least for now).
Why?

Gender/sex was considered a scientific fact until very recently too. Why shouldn't also species be considered as so?

Yes, I am playing the devil's advocate, but deep down, where is the difference except that one has been popular for the last 10 years or so while the other not cause there are only a few people in the world who are identified as cats etc. If there are more many, would this transform the definition of species from a scientific fact to a social construct?
 

BobbyManc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
7,750
Location
The Wall
Supports
Man City
Is Jordan Peterson even right-wing? I am not talking about the caricature of Jordan Peterson given on leftist media, but more on what he really says. Any time I heard him speak (I admit, not that many times), he looked very centristic to me. In fact, I don't even think that what he said is particularly deep or analyzed well, a lot of things were simply common sense (and a lot of other things, especially when he does out of his field of research were quite wrong).

I think only in the current climate of 'if you are not fully with us, you are the enemy', Peterson can be considered right-wing poster boy.
Yes, Peterson is 100% right-wing. There’s no room for doubt there. What ‘leftist’ media are you speaking of?
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,419
Location
London
Yes, Peterson is 100% right-wing. There’s no room for doubt there. What ‘leftist’ media are you speaking of?
Why there is no room for doubt there?

What 100% right-wing positions he takes?
 

KirkDuyt

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
24,444
Location
Dutchland
Supports
Feyenoord
Pardon my ignorance but I always thought all of this contention wasn't an issue of Gender but an issue of Sex. Gender is definitely a social construct I think most would agree with that, But is the idea of what "scientifically" is a man vs what is a woman also a social construct or is that still a stretch to be called a social construct ? (for now)
I'd say your sex is scientific yeah. Im not at all an expert though.