Cancel Culture

ml1 said:

terp said:

The story received next to no coverage by the corporate press. Do a search.  Nobody in the corporate press wanted to cover this story.  If you flipped the ethnicities around it would have been the lead story for months.  They did not want to cover this story because it does not fit their narrative. 

Here's another story that got next to no coverage. I wonder why that is.  You would think it would be a big story when the security forces of a movement to stop police violence shoots and kills a 16 year old black child, that would be newsworthy?   I suppose not.

I must say, for someone who seems very supportive of evolving language to protect people from insult you sure seem to have a high tolerance when it's your perceived political enemies being attacked.  Whether it's an incoming college student being threatened and then questioned by her school for a video supportive of Trump, or a Jewish journalist being harrassed in the workplace and being called a Nazi, or a liberal college professor who respectfully disagrees that white students shouldn't be allowed on campus.  

 you often seem to reinterpret stuff I write to make me seem like a hypocritical *******.  My entire point hasn't been that these events don't happen, or to justify them.  It's to put them in the proper context and not use them as flimsy evidence of a widespread and insidious cultural trend.

 Well, that's not it at all.  I do not think that you are a hypocrite.  Without knowing you personally,  I think you are a person with good intentions.   I think you have reasons for holding your positions and they seem to come from a good place.  

I do think that you have some blind spots, as we all do.  You may be a bit tribal on your assessments of the situations.  

Let's take this incoming freshman as an example.  She posted a video in support of a sitting president.  As a result, there was a campaign to rescind her acceptance.  The school then discussed the matter with her.  She thought her acceptance was at risk.  The school says they thought her safety was at risk.  You don't see the big issue here.  You even think it's fair game to make all kinds of assumptions about her.  

In principle, how is this different from someone getting extra scrutiny due to their ethnicity?  In another thread, people mentioned a black man that lived in an upscale neighborhood and got pulled over an extraordinary number of times.  Did I ask if he received a summons?  No, because it is wrong.  

The same thing applies when it comes to cancelling people.  I don't particularly care if it comes from the left or the right.  The examples further down the page(Maher, Donahue) were both wrong.  And I thought so at the time. I'm sure you don't doubt that.

There are stories like this all the time.  People being censored, deplatformed, forced out, etc.  This discussion just happened to coincide with some high profile cases.  There have been shadow bans on twitter, de-monetizing on YouTube, locked accounts on Patreon, speakers being shouted down before they can get to the venue.   Most of these occur with very little fanfare.  It has been happening for some time. 

ml1 said:

terp said:

 I think its very unfair.  Do you think other Marquette non-democratic incoming freshmen feel more or less welcome given this incident?

 maybe it's unfair.  But I perceived your use of it as an example of someone being "canceled."  It's not evidence of that given the outcome.  

 It is evidence of cancel culture.  There was an email campaign to rescind her acceptance.    Just because it didn't work(and we really don't know how much Marquette considered it) does not mean it's not an example of the phenomenon. 

McSweeney's - https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/the-cancel-culture-of-the-nextdoor-app-has-forced-me-to-resign-as-moderator

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am leaving the Nextdoor app.

I joined Nextdoor with gratitude and optimism two years ago, prepared to make a difference in our beloved neighborhood of Shady Grove by serving as a moderator. Yet, some of you have shown absolutely no appreciation for the immense amount of effort I’ve put in. In fact, you’ve even criticized me, saying that, as a moderator, I control the “narrative” of our neighborhood without any awareness of the responsibility I wield. That accusation is completely untrue.
...

Similarly, some neighbors thought that I was encouraging racism just because I called the police on Barry Jackson. How was I to know that this gated community has a Black resident? Yes, I’d seen him in his yard before, but I’d always assumed he was just a very nicely dressed landscaper. I’m not sure why some people got offended. After all, I was complimenting both his wardrobe and his garden.

terp said:

 It is evidence of cancel culture.  There was an email campaign to rescind her acceptance.    Just because it didn't work(and we really don't know how much Marquette considered it) does not mean it's not an example of the phenomenon. 

 There have always been campaigns to keep some person or persons out for some reason or another.

The first one was probably scratched on a stone wall with a burnt stick.  The existence of email doesn't mean that "cancel culture" is anything new.

terp said:

 Do you mean the video?  If so, I don't really had a problem with anything that was said in the video.  They clearly see this issue as a problem, but noted that Weiss might not be the best messenger.   I wholeheartedly agree with that.

 it was an article in which the authors had talked to people at the NYT on background.  It's in another thread.

terp said:

ml1 said:

terp said:

 I think its very unfair.  Do you think other Marquette non-democratic incoming freshmen feel more or less welcome given this incident?

 maybe it's unfair.  But I perceived your use of it as an example of someone being "canceled."  It's not evidence of that given the outcome.  

 It is evidence of cancel culture.  There was an email campaign to rescind her acceptance.    Just because it didn't work(and we really don't know how much Marquette considered it) does not mean it's not an example of the phenomenon. 

 Again, a few isolated incidents don't indicate a "culture."  And what nohero said.

terp said: 

In principle, how is this different from someone getting extra scrutiny due to their ethnicity?  In another thread, people mentioned a black man that lived in an upscale neighborhood and got pulled over an extraordinary number of times.  Did I ask if he received a summons?  No, because it is wrong.  

do we really need to have a discussion as to why systemic racism is different?

nohero said:

terp said:

 It is evidence of cancel culture.  There was an email campaign to rescind her acceptance.    Just because it didn't work(and we really don't know how much Marquette considered it) does not mean it's not an example of the phenomenon. 

 There have always been campaigns to keep some person or persons out for some reason or another.

The first one was probably scratched on a stone wall with a burnt stick.  The existence of email doesn't mean that "cancel culture" is anything new.

 Racism has been around just as long.  Should we justmshrug our shoulders when that happens?  Or more apropos to this thread, perhaps we should just deny it's very existence. 

ml1 said:

terp said:

 Do you mean the video?  If so, I don't really had a problem with anything that was said in the video.  They clearly see this issue as a problem, but noted that Weiss might not be the best messenger.   I wholeheartedly agree with that.

 it was an article in which the authors had talked to people at the NYT on background.  It's in another thread.

 Thanks, I found it.  I'm not saying I know what went on at the Times, but that gray zone article reads like a blatant hit piece.  "along with notorious Islamophobe Ayaan Hirsi Ali...."  

terp said:

nohero said:

terp said:

 It is evidence of cancel culture.  There was an email campaign to rescind her acceptance.    Just because it didn't work(and we really don't know how much Marquette considered it) does not mean it's not an example of the phenomenon. 

 There have always been campaigns to keep some person or persons out for some reason or another.

The first one was probably scratched on a stone wall with a burnt stick.  The existence of email doesn't mean that "cancel culture" is anything new.

 Racism has been around just as long.  Should we justmshrug our shoulders when that happens?  Or more apropos to this thread, perhaps we should just deny it's very existence. 

I'm not going to play "but what about racism" when that's not relevant to this discussion at all.

No reason to play any games.  I was just pointing out how shallow your argument is.

terp said:

 Thanks, I found it.  I'm not saying I know what went on at the Times, but that gray zone article reads like a blatant hit piece.  "along with notorious Islamophobe Ayaan Hirsi Ali...."  

 I did not see it as a "hit piece" but it was certainly strongly biased. They did not try to hide their biases. I decided to google the alleged "notorious Islamophobe" . She is quite controversial. She is an atheist highly critical of Islam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali#Designation_by_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center

How would a person as critical of Roman Catholicism as she is of Islam fare in academia or public life in general in the U.S.A.

Someone openly critical of Judaism would be labelled an Anti-Semite by almost everyone.

To be fair, she has viscerally experienced how certain strains of Islam treat women. It's somewhat analogous to how Ayn Rand's experience with tyranny in the Soviet Union made instilled hostility towards Socialism in its various forms.  But I think Ali's mellowed over the years, unlike Rand.

terp said:

To be fair, she has viscerally experienced how certain strains of Islam treat women. It's somewhat analogous to how Ayn Rand's experience with tyranny in the Soviet Union made instilled hostility towards Socialism in its various forms.

 That's not an accurate description of her writing or of the uses to which it has been put, against Muslims even in this country.

terp said:

No reason to play any games.  I was just pointing out how shallow your argument is.

 I'm afraid that insult reflects poorly on you.

nohero said:

terp said:

No reason to play any games.  I was just pointing out how shallow your argument is.

 I'm afraid that insult reflects poorly on you.

 Ha.  Dude, you hate me.  You have for years.  It's no biggie. 

terp said:

To be fair, she has viscerally experienced how certain strains of Islam treat women. It's somewhat analogous to how Ayn Rand's experience with tyranny in the Soviet Union made instilled hostility towards Socialism in its various forms.

 There are many who have very negative treatment by the Roman Catholic Church. What would happen to such a person with the same credentials as Ms. Ali if she attacked Roman Catholicism itself or the Church?

There are women who have been raised ultra-orthodox who experienced how women are treated in that community. What would happen if one of them attacked the Jewish Religion?

All religions have positive and negative elements and there are atheists and agnostics who are critical of all. But when someone singles out a specific religion to attack it might just indicate bigotry. Religious persecution has caused some of the worst suffering and tragedy in human history.

STANV said:

terp said:

To be fair, she has viscerally experienced how certain strains of Islam treat women. It's somewhat analogous to how Ayn Rand's experience with tyranny in the Soviet Union made instilled hostility towards Socialism in its various forms.

 There are many who have very negative treatment by the Roman Catholic Church. What would happen to such a person with the same credentials as Ms. Ali if she attacked Roman Catholicism itself or the Church?

There are women who have been raised ultra-orthodox who experienced how women are treated in that community. What would happen if one of them attacked the Jewish Religion?

All religions have positive and negative elements and there are atheists and agnostics who are critical of all. But when someone singles out a specific religion to attack it might just indicate bigotry. Religious persecution has caused some of the worst suffering and tragedy in human history.

 It's a very interesting topic.  I think it depends on the approach.   If you attack the people, you are not likely to get much sympathy.  If you point out issues with the writings and how some leverage the scripture to harm others, it may be a tough sledding, but if you have a point people will listen.  

I think it is difficult to support equal rights for women and what goes on in certain Muslim communities.  Ali has a point there.  Also, violence tends to manifest itself in unique ways within the Muslim community.  Remember the Mohammed cartoon issue.  I don't see that ype of thing happening in too many other religions.   I could be wrong.

All that said, we as a society really have no business lecturing anyone about violence.  And I think we are likely amplifying the violent tendencies of certain sects of Islam through our own actions.

terp said:

nohero said:

terp said:

No reason to play any games.  I was just pointing out how shallow your argument is.

 I'm afraid that insult reflects poorly on you.

 Ha.  Dude, you hate me.  You have for years.  It's no biggie. 

 Got it.  You may need something other than a message board discussion to deal that view.

nohero said:

terp said:

nohero said:

terp said:

No reason to play any games.  I was just pointing out how shallow your argument is.

 I'm afraid that insult reflects poorly on you.

 Ha.  Dude, you hate me.  You have for years.  It's no biggie. 

 Got it.  You may need something other than a message board discussion to deal that view.

 Sorry.  I don't know what that means.

terp said:

 Thanks, I found it.  I'm not saying I know what went on at the Times, but that gray zone article reads like a blatant hit piece.  "along with notorious Islamophobe Ayaan Hirsi Ali...."  

 if you read her resignation letter AND this article you can probably get a good sense of something close to the truth of what happened. 

In the video Stanv posted the one anchor said that he knew people there and they confirmed that there is hostility to thought outside the established narrative at the Times.  I'm guessing the truth depends a bit on perspective.  I should say this came from someone who didn't seem very sympathetic regarding Weiss.

terp said:
All that said, we as a society really have no business lecturing anyone about violence.  And I think we are likely amplifying the violent tendencies of certain sects of Islam through our own actions.

 I am not completely sure I follow you, but why do we have no business lecturing anyone about violence? If someone starts shooting people in the street, do we just let that happen?

basil said:

terp said:
All that said, we as a society really have no business lecturing anyone about violence.  And I think we are likely amplifying the violent tendencies of certain sects of Islam through our own actions.

 I am not completely sure I follow you, but why do we have no business lecturing anyone about violence? If someone starts shooting people in the street, do we just let that happen?

I think terp's point is that we, as a nation, permit our government to commit wanton violence on a massive scale around the world in the name of our "national security". It's something we've done perpetually. And we don't seem to care much about all of the (generally) brown people we kill all over the world, in the name of our tax dollars.

terp said:

I think it is difficult to support equal rights for women and what goes on in certain Muslim communities.  Ali has a point there.  Also, violence tends to manifest itself in unique ways within the Muslim community.  Remember the Mohammed cartoon issue.  I don't see that ype of thing happening in too many other religions.   I could be wrong.

How can one support equal rights for women and what goes on in certain Jewish communities, specifically the Hasidim who do not allow women to be fully educated and whose religious services exclude women from full participation?

How can one support equal rights for women and the Roman Catholic Church's exclusion of women from the Priesthood that runs the Church, not to mention their position on birth control?

As to "violence" to my knowledge no Muslims were responsible for WW1 or WW11, or the atom bomb. And Catholics and Protestants spent more than a century killing each other, and that killing continued as recently as the 1980s in Northern Ireland. 

So we still must ask why Islam is singled out for condemnation for violence.

STANV said:

terp said:

I think it is difficult to support equal rights for women and what goes on in certain Muslim communities.  Ali has a point there.  Also, violence tends to manifest itself in unique ways within the Muslim community.  Remember the Mohammed cartoon issue.  I don't see that ype of thing happening in too many other religions.   I could be wrong.

How can one support equal rights for women and what goes on in certain Jewish communities, specifically the Hasidim who do not allow women to be fully educated and whose religious services exclude women from full participation?

How can one support equal rights for women and the Roman Catholic Church's exclusion of women from the Priesthood that runs the Church, not to mention their position on birth control?

As to "violence" to my knowledge no Muslims were responsible for WW1 or WW11, or the atom bomb. And Catholics and Protestants spent more than a century killing each other, and that killing continued as recently as the 1980s in Northern Ireland. 

So we still must ask why Islam is singled out for condemnation for violence.

Yeah, but the fact is that Christians are not nearly as oppressive towards women nor as violent as the worst of the Islamic nations of today.  You really can't compare them.

Islam is of course too large to criticize without carefully targeting the criticism - you can't just say "Islam does this" - you have to criticize the nations directly, like Iran or Saudi Arabia. I think that's where their critics get into trouble, as they tend to be too broad in their criticism.

drummerboy said:

basil said:

terp said:
All that said, we as a society really have no business lecturing anyone about violence.  And I think we are likely amplifying the violent tendencies of certain sects of Islam through our own actions.

 I am not completely sure I follow you, but why do we have no business lecturing anyone about violence? If someone starts shooting people in the street, do we just let that happen?

I think terp's point is that we, as a nation, permit our government to commit wanton violence on a massive scale around the world in the name of our "national security". It's something we've done perpetually. And we don't seem to care much about all of the (generally) brown people we kill all over the world, in the name of our tax dollars.

 Yep.  Thanks for clarifying. 

Another isolated incident.

From the same right-wing website:

Is this an example of "cancel culture"?

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=15261

terp said:

Another isolated incident.

 this is an interesting story.  Because under the circumstances, hosting a BLM discussion in front of a Blue LIves Matter flag seems like a big fat FU to everyone else on the Zoom.  Should people have gone as far as demanding his resignation is a question that probably deserves more discussion.  But it's not as though somebody just found out he had this flag in his office at home and "canceled" him.  The chief made a choice to use a provocative symbol as his Zoom background, especially given that it wasn't just some random discussion of campus safety.  It was a BLM meeting for jeebus sake.

I'm trying to think what would happen to me if I got on a company Zoom meeting on BLM, diversity, systemic racism and I chose to put the thin blue line flag behind me (let's say I come from a family of cops and I want to show them "support").  

At the very least the chief was being a provocative ******* on a sensitive subject.  Should "free speech" protect someone in the role of police chief even as he does something that is obviously going to raise tensions on campus, not reduce them.

Again, seems like a pretty weak example of liberal overreaction.  Maybe a bit of an overreaction, but the reaction was to a pretty obvious provocation.