What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The “Woke” thread (6 Viewers)

Rich Conway said:
In the bolded, does CC refer to Climate Change or Cancel Culture?  You may want to edit for clarity.
Click to expand...
Ha, I meant cancel culture.  I don't think we're there yet with climate change (or cancel culture for that matter) but I do believe in the same concept and it concerns me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich said:
I agree sho.  To stick with the comparison I also don't think many climate sceptics help the movement based on the extremism of their view or "absoluteism".

In terms of the many examples and some real/some not.  I'd compare to climate change in two ways....First, the ocean is vast don't get hung up on what happened in a 2 square mile radius in the middle of the atlantic, step back and look at the totality of evidence and change.  Second, some #### just isnt climate change or for sure not man made, sceptics will grab onto those to discredit the whole movement...same can be said for cancel culture.
Click to expand...
Im not a huge fan of the analogy though because we are now comparing scientific behavior with social behavior.  Im not trying to discredit the whole movement though...i get that from how I worded things...Id like the canceling side to settle the heck down actually.  The constant need to go after everyone for any past misdeed is ridiculous and often blows up in their face as they themselves have skeletons in their closets.

 
FairWarning said:
It's a big deal in these times, you must be "authentic", she's not for that role.  This explains it more - https://jcommmarketing.com/2019/01/30/brands-should-be-authentic-in-woke-marketing/
Click to expand...
the comparison is not the same. 

you are quoting a blog post about marketing, where the OP was speaking of a person writing a piece of fiction and being denied that opportunity b/c certain people—completely unrelated to the project—didn't feel she was "qualified" to write that based on her ethnicity. IDK, sounds pretty racist to me. 

In the end, that group get the publisher to bend and the author never got the opportunity to publish her book. 

 
glvsav37 said:
the comparison is not the same. 

you are quoting a blog post about marketing, where the OP was speaking of a person writing a piece of fiction and being denied that opportunity b/c certain people—completely unrelated to the project—didn't feel she was "qualified" to write that based on her ethnicity. IDK, sounds pretty racist to me. 

In the end, that group get the publisher to bend and the author never got the opportunity to publish her book. 
Click to expand...
My post was in response to rockactions post about the Asian playing the Hispanic role, not Dr Seuss.

 
sho nuff said:
rockaction said:
The last starfighter crashes to earth. Our hero, taken away by Lilliputian mortals. Later a famous man will say, "I prefer my heroes to not get captured."

Does it make it okay that I deliberately did it but seem to have triggered the wrong people? I couldn't not use "Latinx" in that story. How would I have lived with myself if not now, if not in this particular thread?
Click to expand...
Great movie of my younger days...though caught it once again when I was a bit older and realized how awful of a movie it really was.
Click to expand...
Of course you did.

 
Da Guru said:
tt is intersting how terms evolve in the USA.   When I worked at Ford I traveled to Japan and China many times.  The people there used the term "Oriental" all the time and many refer to themselves as Oriental and the elders still do.   Yet in the late 60s in the USA 2 students teamed up with professors at Cal-Berkely and decided this was an incorrect term and Asians should be the new term. Then deemed Oriental offensive and racist when it is neither. Oriental means from East Asia that is China, Japan, Mongolia, South and North Korea, and Taiwan.

The actual people of that society from that part the world had no say. 
Click to expand...
“Oriental” also includes North Africa and the Middle East. 
 

at least according to Edward Said. 

 
Quint said:
“Oriental” also includes North Africa and the Middle East. 
 

at least according to Edward Said. 
Click to expand...
In the present North Africa is associated with West Asia. Asia as a whole is divided into 6 regions that also include Africa and the Middle East. Russia is considered part of North Asia.

So maybe the term Asian is totally wrong.

 
FairWarning said:
My post was in response to rockactions post about the Asian playing the Hispanic role, not Dr Seuss.
Click to expand...
I know, thats what I was referring too. 

I dont remember everything about it, but now we cant even create literature with certain nationalities in it unless you ARE that nationality? 

Again, "Wokeness" is setting the sidelines of what is and is not appropriate so close together that it will eventually be impossible to create anything soon. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
glvsav37 said:
I know, thats what I was referring too. 

I dont remember everything about it, but now we cant even create literature with certain nationalities in it unless you ARE that nationality? 

Again, "Wokeness" is setting the sidelines of what is and is not appropriate so close together that it will eventually be impossible to create anything soon. 
Click to expand...
I guess not, needs to be an authentic Hispanic. Yes, it hurts our creativity also.

 
rockaction said:
I don't think so. I think that was a cynical sexual harassment claim trumped up by political expediency. It was much more rational that a woke mob coming after somebody.
Click to expand...
Yep - and as we've seen from the Cuomo scandal that door swings one way only among major politicians (except Hillary).    Schumer, Pelosi, Gillibrand, etc. - nope, definitely not striding to the nearest microphone to proclaim to the heavens that "I believe her".  News outlets, with obvious exceptions, quashing this like the Hunter Biden scandal.

In other words, yet another day on the Hill and in the 4th Estate.

 
djmich said:
Not sure I’d put Woody Allen in with cancel culture, I mean if he’s accused of child abuse (true or not) that’s not the same as being canceled for thinking trans men shouldn’t compete in women’s sports.

One is potentially a real crime, the other is a thought crime.
Click to expand...
I think it's an example of cancel culture.

When actors refuse to work with him, producers choose not to distribute his movie, and book publishers cut ties with him, the sense I get from their statements about it seems to be a lot less "I've personally reviewed the evidence and find him likely to be guilty on the merits" than "Mia Farrow is higher-status than the pale little creepy guy, so I'm affiliating with her side."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
"The left wants to cancel free speech!"

"Corporations can't be allowed to make their own decisions!"

Which is it?
Click to expand...
I suggest stop getting so caught up in trying to play "gotcha".  Is the trap here supposed to be conservatives are pro business so not allowing them to make decisions is anti-business or anti-freedom or something like that?  

 
Sand said:
Well, today you can.  Those dominos are just starting to fall.
Click to expand...
I know. It was a joke. It was a typical liberal response to the cancellation. "Well," they'd stamp, "you can always use one of our many fine computer-based auction services." It's kind of funny, that sentiment. How many before you have an effective ban on the book?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich said:
I suggest stop getting so caught up in trying to play "gotcha".  Is the trap here supposed to be conservatives are pro business so not allowing them to make decisions is anti-business or anti-freedom or something like that? 
Click to expand...
Yeah, he's really, really bad at analogies today and yesterday. I was writing a detailed description of how this failed, but let's just let it fail.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I think it's an example of cancel culture.

When actors refuse to work with him, producers choose not to distribute his movie, and book publishers cut ties with him, the sense I get from their statements about it seems to be a lot less "I've personally reviewed the evidence and find him likely to be guilty on the merits" than "Mia Farrow is higher-status than the pale little creepy guy, so I'm affiliating with her side. #metoo"
Click to expand...
Good points.

The term cancel culture is really broad and some things are going to fit better than others.  There are parallels here but just not right on bullseye imo.  Frankly I'm not intimate with the details but my sense is this is more about Woody Allen is just a weird guy and therefore has a target on his back to begin with (my circus freak parallel).  Mia Farrow piling on doesnt help.

 
djmich said:
I suggest stop getting so caught up in trying to play "gotcha".  Is the trap here supposed to be conservatives are pro business so not allowing them to make decisions is anti-business or anti-freedom or something like that?  
Click to expand...
It's not a trap.  I'm honestly confused what conservatives are complaining about, as the arguments tend to contradict each other.  Kind of like how people argued all summer that Joe Biden was experiencing dementia but was also a secret socialist with a master plan to sneakily end capitalism and all freedoms.

 
Ebay not allowing the sale of a handful of books is now the modern day book burning?

Yeah...nothing over the top about that reaction at all.

 
I have a couple of those Seuss books, what should I do?

Edit:  I just looked through "The Cat's Quizzer" and I don't see the fuss at all.  Not sure about the others.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I think it's an example of cancel culture.

When actors refuse to work with him, producers choose not to distribute his movie, and book publishers cut ties with him, the sense I get from their statements about it seems to be a lot less "I've personally reviewed the evidence and find him likely to be guilty on the merits" than "Mia Farrow is higher-status than the pale little creepy guy, so I'm affiliating with her side."
Click to expand...
I never followed the Woody Allen stuff much at all.  Not a fan of his movies, didn't care when scandal struck.  I'll defer to your interpretation of the social dynamics in that one particular case.

In general, though, I think it's helpful to include a distinction that "cancel culture" is mainly about punishing people for saying or believing something wrong, as opposed to doing something wrong.  If a person says "I think norms against sexual harassment have gone too far," and they get punished for that, that would be cancel culture.  If a person pinches his secretary on her rear and gets punished for that, that's totally fine and appropriate.

This is less of a response to you than it is a preemptive response to tim who is going to want to re-litigate the Harvey Weinstein saga.  I'm glad that guy's gone.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
In general, though, I think it's helpful to include a distinction that "cancel culture" is mainly about punishing people for saying or believing something wrong, as opposed to doing something wrong.  If a person says "I think norms against sexual harassment have gone too far," and they get punished for that, that would be cancel culture.  If a person pinches his secretary on her rear and gets punished for that, that's totally fine and appropriate.
Click to expand...
The mark of cancel culture, in my view, is that the criticism leading to cancelation is motivated (usually subconsciously) by jockeying for status.

If being woke is good, being more woke is better, and the way to show off your level of wokeness is by expanding the range of things you can artfully diagnose as being oppressively offensive.

The same psychological dynamic is present among, for example, religious fundamentalists -- there's a sort of contest to see who can most strongly signal loyalty to the in-group by believing transparently crazy things.

When you believe something because it's actually true, that's not fundamentalism. When you disaffiliate with someone because he's actually bad, that's not cancel culture. Those things have very little signaling value to any particular in-group. ("Believe credible women!" will never inspire a hashtag.)

But when you disaffiliate with someone because you think doing so will raise your status among your (usually left-leaning) in-group, that's what I'd call cancel culture.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
The mark of cancel culture, in my view, is that the criticism leading to cancelation is motivated (usually subconsciously) by jockeying for status.

If being woke is good, being more woke is better, and the way to show off your level of wokeness is by expanding the range of things you can artfully diagnose as being oppressively offensive.

The same psychological dynamic is present among, for example, religious fundamentalists -- there's a sort of contest to see who can most strongly signal loyalty to the in-group by believing transparently crazy things.

When you believe something because it's actually true, that's not fundamentalism. When you disaffiliate with someone because he's actually bad, that's not cancel culture. Those things have very little signaling value to any particular in-group.

But when you disaffiliate with someone because you think doing so will raise your status among your (usually left-leaning) in-group, that's what I'd call cancel culture.
Click to expand...
I hadn't thought it about it that way before.  Now I need to chew on this a little.

 
sho nuff said:
Ebay not allowing the sale of a handful of books is now the modern day book burning?

Yeah...nothing over the top about that reaction at all.
Click to expand...
What makes the eBay decision especially weird and bad is that the Seuss Organization didn't even ask them to do it. It's like strange form of virtue signaling where the deference is based entirely on assumption.

 
Rich Conway said:
Great.  So by allowing corporations to make their own decisions, "the left" isn't trying to cancel free speech at all.
Click to expand...
No, if you're encouraging corporations to suppress speech on the basis of you not liking what's being said, it's fair to say that you're opposed to free speech as a matter of principle.  That doesn't involve the government or the first amendment or anything, but that doesn't make it not illiberal.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
No, if you're encouraging corporations to suppress speech on the basis of you not liking what's being said, it's fair to say that you're opposed to free speech as a matter of principle.  That doesn't involve the government or the first amendment or anything, but that doesn't make it not illiberal.
Click to expand...
I could be persuaded to this argument, but it only applies if group X is actually doing said encouraging.  I'm not seeing that in the most recent examples (Hasbro, Seuss enterprises, eBay).  I keep hearing that "the left" is forcing these corporations to act in a particular way, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that's the case.

 
Rich Conway said:
It's not a trap.  I'm honestly confused what conservatives are complaining about, as the arguments tend to contradict each other.  Kind of like how people argued all summer that Joe Biden was experiencing dementia but was also a secret socialist with a master plan to sneakily end capitalism and all freedoms.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're confused, belligerent maybe?.  The bolded really helps understand the place you are coming from...you are upset, you are caught up in the "the red/blue war", it is probably driving some of the confusion.

Free speech is good.

When people are not able to exercise free speech for fear of reprisal that is generally not good.

When When publishers are afraid of publishing content for fear of reprisal that is not good.  Sure they made the decision to not publish a book that questions the health ramifications of increased gender changes in teenagers.  But if they decided that simply because the woke mob would mete out retribution that is not good.   

 
Rich Conway said:
I could be persuaded to this argument, but it only applies if group X is actually doing said encouraging.  I'm not seeing that in the most recent examples (Hasbro, Seuss enterprises, eBay).  I keep hearing that "the left" is forcing these corporations to act in a particular way, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that's the case.
Click to expand...
The "people" who are encouraging this, what "side" (left or right) do you think they are affiliated with?

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
The mark of cancel culture, in my view, is that the criticism leading to cancelation is motivated (usually subconsciously) by jockeying for status.

If being woke is good, being more woke is better, and the way to show off your level of wokeness is by expanding the range of things you can artfully diagnose as being oppressively offensive.

The same psychological dynamic is present among, for example, religious fundamentalists -- there's a sort of contest to see who can most strongly signal loyalty to the in-group by believing transparently crazy things.

When you believe something because it's actually true, that's not fundamentalism. When you disaffiliate with someone because he's actually bad, that's not cancel culture. Those things have very little signaling value to any particular in-group.

But when you disaffiliate with someone because you think doing so will raise your status among your (usually left-leaning) in-group, that's what I'd call cancel culture.
Click to expand...
Strong post here,especially the 2nd paragraph. 

 
Hov34 said:
The "people" who are encouraging this, what "side" (left or right) do you think they are affiliated with?
Click to expand...
In the three cases I mentioned (Hasbro, Seuss Enterprises, eBay/Seuss), it's not that I'm unable to guess the affiliation of a group, it's that I haven't seen any evidence that any group encouraged the actions of the corporations.

 
Hov34 said:
Rich Conway said:
I could be persuaded to this argument, but it only applies if group X is actually doing said encouraging.  I'm not seeing that in the most recent examples (Hasbro, Seuss enterprises, eBay).  I keep hearing that "the left" is forcing these corporations to act in a particular way, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that's the case.
Click to expand...
The "people" who are encouraging this, what "side" (left or right) do you think they are affiliated with?
Click to expand...
Who is encouraging it, though? Why assume without evidence that it's coming from anyone at all? Isn't it possible that the Seuss Organization took it upon themselves to re-evaluate the books, and then decided, without any pressure or provocation, to delete some of them? Until there's evidence to the contrary, I feel like we should give the Seuss company the benefit of the doubt.

 
Sea Duck said:
Who is encouraging it, though? Why assume without evidence that it's coming from anyone at all? Isn't it possible that the Seuss Organization took it upon themselves to re-evaluate the books, and then decided, without any pressure or provocation, to delete some of them? Until there's evidence to the contrary, I feel like we should give the Seuss company the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
Because it did come from someone else?

The Cat is Out of the Bag: Orientalism, Anti-Blackness, and White Supremacy in Dr. Seuss' Children's Books

By Katie Ishizuka and Ramón Stephens (I hate to assume, but after reading this "paper" I'm just going to go ahead and say they are liberal democrats - :nttawwt:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hov34 said:
Because it did come from someone else?

The Cat is Out of the Bag: Orientalism, Anti-Blackness, and White Supremacy in Dr. Seuss' Children's Books

By Katie Ishizuka and Ramón Stephens (I hate to assume, but after reading this "paper" I'm just going to go ahead and say they are liberal democrats - :nttawwt:
Click to expand...
You're suggesting that Seuss Org read this paper, that lists instances of "offensive stuff" in dozens upon dozens of Seuss books, and considered that as pressure related to six books?  And that this pressure was suddenly enough to force their hand, two years later?

 
Rich Conway said:
You're suggesting that Seuss Org read this paper, that lists instances of "offensive stuff" in dozens upon dozens of Seuss books, and considered that as pressure related to six books?  And that this pressure was suddenly enough to force their hand, two years later?
Click to expand...
You asked:

I keep hearing that "the left" is forcing these corporations to act in a particular way, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that's the case.
Click to expand...
I gave evidence to suggest that's the case.

:shrug:

 
Hov34 said:
Sea Duck said:
Who is encouraging it, though? Why assume without evidence that it's coming from anyone at all? Isn't it possible that the Seuss Organization took it upon themselves to re-evaluate the books, and then decided, without any pressure or provocation, to delete some of them? Until there's evidence to the contrary, I feel like we should give the Seuss company the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
Because it did come from someone else?

The Cat is Out of the Bag: Orientalism, Anti-Blackness, and White Supremacy in Dr. Seuss' Children's Books

By Katie Ishizuka and Ramón Stephens (I hate to assume, but after reading this "paper" I'm just going to go ahead and say they are liberal democrats - :nttawwt:
Click to expand...
First, that's from 2 years ago.

Second, that paper doesn't "encourage" deletion; it merely catalogs examples of stereotypical depictions.

Third, the paper doesn't even target one of the books which was deleted by the Seuss company ("McElligot’s Pool").

Fourth, it's ONE PAPER by (what appears to be) a couple of random college students. Is that what passes for the woke cancel culture mob these days?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
OP/ED "The Trouble With Socialism Is That Eventually You Run Out Of Other People's Money." (4/22/22 21:05PST)
2 3
Replies
138
Views
3K
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
T
GordonGekko
OP/ED: Explaining Why Donald Trump Going To Prison Would Be Good For America (7/12/22 21:26 PST)
Replies
3
Views
349
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Hypothetical: Does Japan's Birth Rate Crisis Justify The Permanent Banning Of All Their Abortions? (6/22/22 00:50 PST)
Replies
4
Views
491
Zigg
Z

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top