Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

“Cancel Culture” and “Woke”


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

The implication behind the term “cancel culture” is that there’s a deliberate plan behind most of the anecdotes that are provided as examples of it- a plan by the Left to change our society in a sinister way, rather than individual, unconnected attempts to remove perceived injustices. Therefore the burden of proof is on you, not him. (A burden, incidentally, which no one making this argument has come close to meeting, IMO.) 

It's not orchestrated by the Left.

But a very vocal part embraces it.

It's their religion.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That was way too long a post.  Gordon Gekko is looking at that and wondering why I couldn't tighten it up a little.

Cancelling an awards show might be the best thing ever to emerge from the woke movement.  If they cancel the Oscars, I might become pro-woke.

I make sure to tell Tim that he's wrong about something at least weekly.  It's my good deed of the day.

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, timschochet said:

The implication behind the term “cancel culture” is that there’s a deliberate plan behind most of the anecdotes that are provided as examples of it- a plan by the Left to change our society in a sinister way, rather than individual, unconnected attempts to remove perceived injustices. Therefore the burden of proof is on you, not him. (A burden, incidentally, which no one making this argument has come close to meeting, IMO.) 

lol, you always do this.  Write a bunch of stuff that is based on what is in your head, that nobody has said, which is then the basis of your strawman that you come in and soundly defeat.  Congrats Sir Tim.

The implication behind cancel culture is that there's a deliberate plan.  Where did you find this implication, it seems only you are implying this.  Show me where someone is saying in this thread that there is a group of individuals that have some sort of a cancel culture platform or gameplan to execute on or win cancel culture?  I think most references are that its a "mob" and what's being cited are individual incidents.

Change our society in a sinister way.  Show me where anyone here has said the concern is that the cancel culture mob is changing society in a sinister way?  I know your strawman needs to sound intimidating before noble Sir Tim comes in to slay it.  The concern is that people are being canceled for expressing thought and speech that the mob doesn't agree with.

Therefore the burden of proof is on you.  Right, you have 38 pages of examples to go back and read.  At what point does all the proof count as proof?  60 pages?  It's ironic that you come into the thread where everyone is posting proof to proclaim "you have no proof!".  I know you have read at least some of it because there have been instances where you trot into the thread and defend the cancel mob and then have walked it back after actually spending some time reading the linked material.

 A burden, incidentally, which no one making this argument has come close to meeting.  Right, because it is your argument that you made up.

Edited by djmich
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, moleculo said:

That's a lot of interpretation on the basis of two words.  It kind of reads like, " I'm not even going to bother understanding the argument and instead I will just lob unjustified accusations of following Hannity"

The way I meant "I'm convinced" is this: I have formed my own strong opinion on the basis of observations and commentary. 

As always, you are more than free to disagree but please don't ever accuse me of parroting Hannity again.  That is as grave an insult as someone can lob.  I am deeply offended and demand that you edit your original post and promise to never do it again.

I would be interested in the basis of your observations and commentary.  I am assuming that if you are convinced and have formed a strong opinion you have some reference points to rely upon.

lol...I didn't accuse you have parroting Hannity, actually meant the opposite that them talking about it is part of the basis for your being "convinced".   You referenced that cancel culture is a right wing media talking point, ... so you either heard that right wing media is talking about it or watched right wing media yourself.  

 

Edited by djmich
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, djmich said:

I would be interested in the basis of your observations and commentary.  I am assuming that if you are convinced and have formed a strong opinion you have some reference points to rely upon.

lol...I didn't accuse you have parroting Hannity, actually meant the opposite that them talking about it is part of the basis for your being "convinced".   You referenced that cancel culture is a right wing media talking point, ... so you either heard that right wing media is talking about it or watched right wing media yourself.  

 

I don't watch right wing media but I know it's a running topic on fox news.  I can tell that by the links in this thread.  Also, from the links my dad sends me and posts on Facebook.  Based on that, cancel culture is one of their favorite topics,.  That, and how the site man is the true victim here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, moleculo said:

I don't watch right wing media but I know it's a running topic on fox news.  I can tell that by the links in this thread.  Also, from the links my dad sends me and posts on Facebook.  Based on that, cancel culture is one of their favorite topics,.  That, and how the site man is the true victim here.

Most of the people who in my little orbit who talk about cancel culture are center-left types.  Conor Friedersdorf, Jesse Singal, Matt Taibbi, and folks like that along with the usual round-up of libertarians and Never Trumpers.  

Of course, what all those people have in common is a shared commitment to small-l liberalism.  That's what differentiates them from the woke puritans in the progressive community and the authoritarian QAnon types on the right.  If you're a liberal who likes viewpoint diversity, wokeness and its open hostility to free speech norms is going to rub you the wrong way.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Most of the people who in my little orbit who talk about cancel culture are center-left types.  Conor Friedersdorf, Jesse Singal, Matt Taibbi, and folks like that along with the usual round-up of libertarians and Never Trumpers.  

Of course, what all those people have in common is a shared commitment to small-l liberalism.  That's what differentiates them from the woke puritans in the progressive community and the authoritarian QAnon types on the right.  If you're a liberal who likes viewpoint diversity, wokeness and its open hostility to free speech norms is going to rub you the wrong way.

And - here's the kicker - @moleculo seems to ONLY be blaming this on right wing media.  :doh:

Nothing said about the left - it's just right wing outrage which, of course, is BS.  IMO, it was @moleculo's attempt at - once again - bashing the right while leaving "the left" alone as if there is ZERO culpability on their side.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

And - here's the kicker - @moleculo seems to ONLY be blaming this on right wing media.  :doh:

Nothing said about the left - it's just right wing outrage which, of course, is BS.  IMO, it was @moleculo's attempt at - once again - bashing the right while leaving "the left" alone as if there is ZERO culpability on their side.

Here’s my take. Cancel culture is a legitimate concern. It’s nasty. And unfair. And it does exist. On any given day, there will be any number of examples of people getting canceled wrongly or unfairly. It shouldn’t be ignored or dismissed. It’s a problem. A legitimate problem. BUT, I think conservative media generally does a good job of finding and reporting on all these instances that occur, and end up creating an impression that this stuff is happening everywhere in our lives.  And it’s not.

But it could be at some point. So I’m glad we’re talking about it. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

And - here's the kicker - @moleculo seems to ONLY be blaming this on right wing media.  :doh:

Nothing said about the left - it's just right wing outrage which, of course, is BS.  IMO, it was @moleculo's attempt at - once again - bashing the right while leaving "the left" alone as if there is ZERO culpability on their side.

I am under no obligation to boff sidez anything. I call it like I see it.  

There are legitimate gripes like @bigbottompoints out, but there are also areas like the afore-mentioned "Snow White = sexual assault" that makes me think y'all see getting trolled.

Also, my earlier rant is more on the "woke" bit - hyper SJW stuff.  I am not really commenting on firing someone for expressing political views.

Edited by moleculo
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, moleculo said:

I am under no obligation to boff sidez anything. I call it like I see it.  

There are legitimate gripes like @bigbottompoints out, but there are also areas like the afore-mentioned "Snow White = sexual assault" that makes me think y'all see getting trolled.

If you want to be honest, then you should be instead of being dishonest-by-omission.  :shrug:

As I said, you did it to dig at the GOP only - Partisan Style!

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BladeRunner said:

If you want to be honest, then you should be instead of being dishonest-by-omission.  :shrug:

As I said, you did it to dig at the GOP only - Partisan Style!

I took no such dig at the GOP.  My claim was focused on the right being media.

I think I must have touched a nerve here.  I'll back out slowly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

St. John’s professor allegedly fired for reading racial slur from Mark Twain book

Hannah Berliner Fischthal used N-word once during a remote class on Twain's anti-slavery novel 'Pudd'nhead Wilson'
 

In a twist worthy of Mark Twain himself, a St. John’s University professor has been fired for reading a passage containing the N-word from Twain’s anti-slavery novel "Pudd’nhead Wilson" in her "Literature of Satire" class.

Hannah Berliner Fischthal, an adjunct instructor at the Catholic college in Queens for 20 years, uttered the N-word once during a remote class Feb. 10 — after she first explained to students the context of the word and said she hoped it would not offend anyone.

"Mark Twain was one of the first American writers to use actual dialect," Fischthal said. "His use of the ‘N-word’ is used only in dialogues as it could have actually been spoken in the south before the civil war, when the story takes place."

The day after the class, however, she got an email from a student who said she had to "abruptly" leave the call because of Fischthal’s use of an "inappropriate slur."

"It was unnecessary and very painful to hear," the student wrote in the email seen by The Post.

Fischthal apologized to the student in an email and set up a private discussion online about the issue that she titled "Insensitive Language."

"I apologize if I made anyone uncomfortable in the class by using a slur when quoting from and discussing the text," Fischthal wrote. "Please do share your thoughts."

Six students responded, including the initial complainant. Two defended Fischthal and the rest said the N-word should not have been used. Fischthal also invited students to discuss the controversy during the next class but she said the N-word was not used by anyone during that discussion.

"Pudd’nhead Wilson," published in 1894, is one of Twain’s lesser-known novels. It focuses on the absurdity and tragedy of racism and slavery. The plot turns on a light-skinned slave named Roxy who decides to switch her light-skinned baby boy with her master’s baby boy shortly after birth in order to save her child from being "sold down the river" and to ensure him a life of wealth and white privilege.

Roxy’s biological son, however, grows up to be a spoiled monster while the master’s biological son grows up as a humble man of character. The story turns into a murder mystery at the end when Roxy’s biological son commits a vicious crime and his real identity is revealed.

"It satirizes the entire evil institution of slavery," Fischthal told the Post. "The point of this novel was that there is no inherent difference between Blacks and Whites. Clothes and education are what distinguishes people.  Both the boys in the story look exactly the same, even though one is by law a slave, and the other one is a privileged White boy."

Fischthal said she was unaware of how racial politics have exploded at universities around the country but said she was "horrified" by the case of another SJU adjunct instructor, Richard Taylor. Taylor was firedearlier this year when students complained that he was racist because of questions he posed during a lesson involving slavery.

"I never thought that would happen to me," said Fischthal, who is the daughter of Holocaust survivors. "I’m one of the last people who should be accused of racism. I know where it leads and I know where it ends. In every class I teach the evils of stereotyping."

But Fischthal’s apologies and her efforts to address the issue ultimately did not help.

On March 3 she was called into a meeting with HR about her use of the N-word in class, the subsequent discussion of it and a comment she allegedly made about a Black student’s hair. Fischthal said she only made a remark about a student’s head being wrapped up during class and it had nothing to do with her hair.

She said she was also criticized for mentioning her family’s experience in the Holocaust during class.

On March 5 she was suspended pending an investigation she had violated the university’s policy against bias. On April 29 she was fired.

Fischthal said she always received good performance reviews from both her bosses and students.

Attorneys for FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) sent the Rev. Brian J. Shanley, SJU president, a letter late Friday calling on him to reinstate Fischthal.

"Quoting (Mark Twain’s) work in a class on satire falls squarely within the protection afforded by academic freedom, which gives faculty members the breathing room to determine whether — and how — to discuss material students might find offensive," the FIRE letter read.

When contacted by The Post, Brian Browne, a spokesman for St. John’s, said that "if your assertion is that she was fired for reading aloud from a Mark Twain novel, that is incorrect." He refused to elaborate, saying the university does not comment on personnel matters.

"I just know I’ll miss my students and classes," Fischthal said. "I love teaching."

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

St. John’s professor allegedly fired for reading racial slur from Mark Twain book

Hannah Berliner Fischthal used N-word once during a remote class on Twain's anti-slavery novel 'Pudd'nhead Wilson'
 

In a twist worthy of Mark Twain himself, a St. John’s University professor has been fired for reading a passage containing the N-word from Twain’s anti-slavery novel "Pudd’nhead Wilson" in her "Literature of Satire" class.

Hannah Berliner Fischthal, an adjunct instructor at the Catholic college in Queens for 20 years, uttered the N-word once during a remote class Feb. 10 — after she first explained to students the context of the word and said she hoped it would not offend anyone.

"Mark Twain was one of the first American writers to use actual dialect," Fischthal said. "His use of the ‘N-word’ is used only in dialogues as it could have actually been spoken in the south before the civil war, when the story takes place."

The day after the class, however, she got an email from a student who said she had to "abruptly" leave the call because of Fischthal’s use of an "inappropriate slur."

"It was unnecessary and very painful to hear," the student wrote in the email seen by The Post.

Fischthal apologized to the student in an email and set up a private discussion online about the issue that she titled "Insensitive Language."

"I apologize if I made anyone uncomfortable in the class by using a slur when quoting from and discussing the text," Fischthal wrote. "Please do share your thoughts."

Six students responded, including the initial complainant. Two defended Fischthal and the rest said the N-word should not have been used. Fischthal also invited students to discuss the controversy during the next class but she said the N-word was not used by anyone during that discussion.

"Pudd’nhead Wilson," published in 1894, is one of Twain’s lesser-known novels. It focuses on the absurdity and tragedy of racism and slavery. The plot turns on a light-skinned slave named Roxy who decides to switch her light-skinned baby boy with her master’s baby boy shortly after birth in order to save her child from being "sold down the river" and to ensure him a life of wealth and white privilege.

Roxy’s biological son, however, grows up to be a spoiled monster while the master’s biological son grows up as a humble man of character. The story turns into a murder mystery at the end when Roxy’s biological son commits a vicious crime and his real identity is revealed.

"It satirizes the entire evil institution of slavery," Fischthal told the Post. "The point of this novel was that there is no inherent difference between Blacks and Whites. Clothes and education are what distinguishes people.  Both the boys in the story look exactly the same, even though one is by law a slave, and the other one is a privileged White boy."

Fischthal said she was unaware of how racial politics have exploded at universities around the country but said she was "horrified" by the case of another SJU adjunct instructor, Richard Taylor. Taylor was firedearlier this year when students complained that he was racist because of questions he posed during a lesson involving slavery.

"I never thought that would happen to me," said Fischthal, who is the daughter of Holocaust survivors. "I’m one of the last people who should be accused of racism. I know where it leads and I know where it ends. In every class I teach the evils of stereotyping."

But Fischthal’s apologies and her efforts to address the issue ultimately did not help.

On March 3 she was called into a meeting with HR about her use of the N-word in class, the subsequent discussion of it and a comment she allegedly made about a Black student’s hair. Fischthal said she only made a remark about a student’s head being wrapped up during class and it had nothing to do with her hair.

She said she was also criticized for mentioning her family’s experience in the Holocaust during class.

On March 5 she was suspended pending an investigation she had violated the university’s policy against bias. On April 29 she was fired.

Fischthal said she always received good performance reviews from both her bosses and students.

Attorneys for FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) sent the Rev. Brian J. Shanley, SJU president, a letter late Friday calling on him to reinstate Fischthal.

"Quoting (Mark Twain’s) work in a class on satire falls squarely within the protection afforded by academic freedom, which gives faculty members the breathing room to determine whether — and how — to discuss material students might find offensive," the FIRE letter read.

When contacted by The Post, Brian Browne, a spokesman for St. John’s, said that "if your assertion is that she was fired for reading aloud from a Mark Twain novel, that is incorrect." He refused to elaborate, saying the university does not comment on personnel matters.

"I just know I’ll miss my students and classes," Fischthal said. "I love teaching."

You have to be pretty out of touch to be a teacher in 2021 and think it is okay to use that word when teaching a class, even if you are just quoting out of a book.  Too bad, as it sounds like she meant no malice whatsoever, but she made a poor decision, and actions have consequences.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ghost Rider said:

You have to be pretty out of touch to be a teacher in 2021 and think it is okay to use that word when teaching a class, even if you are just quoting out of a book.  Too bad, as it sounds like she meant no malice whatsoever, but she made a poor decision, and actions have consequences.  

Right.  She had the foresight to try to clear the language with her students before reading, so why didn't she clear it with the school?  Sounds like she was looking for a battle.  I wonder how much she'll raise in the GoFundMe?

There may be legitimate concern that as language becomes more sensitive and restrictive, we're inhibiting individual thought. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ghost Rider said:

You have to be pretty out of touch to be a teacher in 2021 and think it is okay to use that word when teaching a class, even if you are just quoting out of a book.  Too bad, as it sounds like she meant no malice whatsoever, but she made a poor decision, and actions have consequences.  

It's sad that "teaching Mark Twain" has become synonymous for "out of touch". That's the root of the "woke" problem right there, IMO.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Caveman33 said:

Right.  She had the foresight to try to clear the language with her students before reading, so why didn't she clear it with the school?  Sounds like she was looking for a battle.  I wonder how much she'll raise in the GoFundMe?

There may be legitimate concern that as language becomes more sensitive and restrictive, we're inhibiting individual thought. 

She didn't really "clear" the language with her students, though. ("Clear" would imply that the language was fully approved.)

Nonetheless, it does appear that she gave a suitable warning, which should be all that is required for a college professor to utter offensive language.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a young adult, Huckleberry Finn was one of the first works that has had a permanence in my life.

Sad that we've gotten to a point that historical context is ignored and essential truths are erased.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, identikit said:

As a young adult, Huckleberry Finn was one of the first works that has had a permanence in my life.

Sad that we've gotten to a point that historical context is ignored and essential truths are erased.

Care to expand on that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Apple Jack said:

Care to expand on that?

Huck has been in the 'ban' crosshairs since the 70s (when I first read it).  I believe I read that it was banned almost immediately after its original publication in some circles.

I don't think it's a healthy thing for our society.

If you're asking about what the 'essential truths' that Twain wrote about, all I can say is read it again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, identikit said:

Huck has been in the 'ban' crosshairs since the 70s (when I first read it).  I believe I read that it was banned almost immediately after its original publication in some circles.

I don't think it's a healthy thing for our society.

If you're asking about what the 'essential truths' that Twain wrote about, all I can say is read it again.

I haven't seen anyone proposing a ban.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Apple Jack said:

I haven't seen anyone proposing a ban.

I've heard otherwise (bans, erasures,history, history cleansing etc) here on this forum, and in the real world.

I'm ok with us disagreeing on that sort of thing.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I get some institutions wanting to avoid the n word and any noise, including potential legal issues, surrounding that. I don't see the removal of it from curriculum as anything more than that. Least of all an effort to dodge discussing race.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame on the faculty for giving the initial complaints oxygen.  They should have filed the complaints in the round filing cabinet beneath the desk.

This is what I was talking about wrt trolling - was the student truly and irreparably hurt by hearing that word in context?  I don't think any serious argument can be made to justify firing the professor on that basis.

It's up to the powers that be within the St Johns university to not bend to the whims of a disgruntled student.

Which, leads me to my next point: 

14 hours ago, ekbeats said:

When contacted by The Post, Brian Browne, a spokesman for St. John’s, said that "if your assertion is that she was fired for reading aloud from a Mark Twain novel, that is incorrect." He refused to elaborate, saying the university does not comment on personnel matters.

Maybe there is more to the story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, moleculo said:

Shame on the faculty for giving the initial complaints oxygen.  They should have filed the complaints in the round filing cabinet beneath the desk.

This is what I was talking about wrt trolling - was the student truly and irreparably hurt by hearing that word in context?  I don't think any serious argument can be made to justify firing the professor on that basis.

It's up to the powers that be within the St Johns university to not bend to the whims of a disgruntled student.

Which, leads me to my next point: 

Maybe there is more to the story.

Probably not.

That's the usual canned response to such questions.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile in ultra-Liberal Laudon County, VA - look at what’s on the class reading assignment list:

Watch: Angry Virginia moms line up to read 'pornographic' excerpts from books assigned to 9th graders

A group of furious parents lined up before Virginia’s Loudoun County School Board this week to read several “pornographic” passages from books assigned to ninth graders in the district, amid a recall effort against several of the board’s members.

What are the details?

In a clip from Tuesday night’s meeting provided by Media Research Center, the first mom reads from a book describing a domestic violence scenario where the narrator talks about a female “coming out of some car in these tight-a** little shorts…telling me she’s going to leave me.”

“I grab her by the neck and start punching her,” the mother continues to read. Later, the narrator describes keeping the female “in a closet for a couple of days” where “she kept on screaming, begging to be let out. Begging for water.”

The rest of the excerpts were sexual in nature.

“Jasper wasn’t even my boyfriend, just this dude I did some hacking with once in a while,” the second mother reads. “He was pretty basic…but he had a big d***. And sometimes a girl just needs a big d***.”

A third parent read about sex acts involving a “boy — his pants around his ankles — squeezed between April’s straddled legs as she lay on top of a teacher’s desk.” The narrator describes flipping the “boy” around, “pushing him against the wall” and then dropping to their knees.

The fourth mother reads an excerpt where the narrator declares, “she sucked my d***. I didn’t really want it to happen, it just kinda did.” Another character in the book replies, “Wait a minute, is that what was really going on? She did your homework and you ate her c******!”

A gentleman who said he is representing a group of parents in a harassment suit addressed the board following the readings. 

After listing off a number of the sexual acts covered, he pointed to the panel and asked, “By show of hands, does anyone up here want to talk about that stuff now? Not a single hand, because it’s very uncomfortable and we’re in a room full of adults.”

He said the reason no one wants to talk about it is “because they’re not acceptable topics,” and added, “my kids don’t go to your crap schools, but theirs do.”

What was the reaction?

When asked for reaction by Fox News, Loudoun County Public Schools pointed to a news releasepublished Wednesday where the district reminded “parents that if they feel a book is not appropriate for their student” they may “submit a formal request for the Reconsideration of Instructional Materials.”

One parent, who did not want to be named, told the outlet, “This is the same district that banned Dr. Seuss and ‘Huckleberry Finn’ as being ‘offensive,’ yet they’re having children read pornography that violates every code of conduct in their sexual harassment training.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, identikit said:

Probably not.

That's the usual canned response to such questions.

Yep, it's the usual "pattern of behavior" excuse always given.

Don't start trouble or Der Kommissar will find you.

Like Falco.

Don't turn around. Ja ja

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sea Duck said:

It's sad that "teaching Mark Twain" has become synonymous for "out of touch". That's the root of the "woke" problem right there, IMO.

I suspect her teaching of Mark Twain would have been mostly* fine if she had not used the n-word.  

*I say mostly because I am sure some kid would get upset about it, since everyone is offended by anything these days. 

9 hours ago, identikit said:

As a young adult, Huckleberry Finn was one of the first works that has had a permanence in my life.

Sad that we've gotten to a point that historical context is ignored and essential truths are erased.

Agreed. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

I suspect her teaching of Mark Twain would have been mostly* fine if she had not used the n-word.  

*I say mostly because I am sure some kid would get upset about it, since everyone is offended by anything these days.

As a very general rule of thumb, college professors should not be fired for citing the words of historically relevant people.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

As a very general rule of thumb, college professors should not be fired for citing the words of historically relevant people.

That's great, and I'm glad you said that.

The problem, though, is that the leaders of YOUR party (local, state and Federal) - who are currently in charge - are advocating for the exact opposite.  These are the people that YOU are voting into office.  When will enough be enough?

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:
10 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

As a very general rule of thumb, college professors should not be fired for citing the words of historically relevant people.

That's great, and I'm glad you said that.

The problem, though, is that the leaders of YOUR party (local, state and Federal) - who are currently in charge - are advocating for the exact opposite.  These are the people that YOU are voting into office.  When will enough be enough?

What the hell are you talking about? I live in Canada. :lmao:

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

What the hell are you talking about? I live in Canada. :lmao:

Oh, daayumm!  :doh:

My bad, but isn't Canada even worse regarding this stuff? 

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2021 at 2:33 PM, IvanKaramazov said:

Most of the people who in my little orbit who talk about cancel culture are center-left types.  Conor Friedersdorf, Jesse Singal, Matt Taibbi, and folks like that along with the usual round-up of libertarians and Never Trumpers.  

Of course, what all those people have in common is a shared commitment to small-l liberalism.  That's what differentiates them from the woke puritans in the progressive community and the authoritarian QAnon types on the right.  If you're a liberal who likes viewpoint diversity, wokeness and its open hostility to free speech norms is going to rub you the wrong way.

This is spot-on. I think the problem with cancel culture is that there are now three types of people claiming "cancellation" of certain things. There are people who lament it and have been unjustly cancelled (the people from the center-left and small "l" liberals that IK points out), people that lament it and then turn around and use the very technique they lament (the Trumps and Hannitys and Laura Ingrahams of the world), and then there are people who co-opt it and claim it's being used against them (the Bob Bafferts and Matt Gaetzs and other silly folks who use it as an excuse to escape wrongdoing).

So it becomes a tripartite game to navigate who is being genuine with their complaints and who isn't. That does not mean that there aren't those of us, who are apparently moderates these days, who don't see and uniquely feel the phenomenon coming from both the right and the left of the political spectrum when discussing certain issues. Singal deals with it from the trans world, Taibbi from the left, and Friedersdorf from both sides. Those guys all have legitimate beefs.

Trump and Hannity and Baffert and Fox News and the like are just phonies traipsing in a concept that doesn't apply to them other than as a convenient excuse when things go bad for them. Then they pull it out and claim cancel culture, despite all evidence of hypocrisy or wrongdoing to the contrary. But despite tim's wrongheaded protestations, cancel culture is very real. It exists mainly in the academic and online world, so we don't see it every day, but there it exists, and exists hard. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Woke is a cancer in our society which must be rooted out.  I remember when the left used to despise these types of activities when the moral majority types imposed them.  Now many have become what they hate.  It is amazing how a tiny bit if power changes the mindset of people.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Woke is a cancer in our society which must be rooted out.  I remember when the left used to despise these types of activities when the moral majority types imposed them.  Now many have become what they hate.  It is amazing how a tiny bit if power changes the mindset of people.  

Let's not forget the Hollywood blacklists of the late 40's and 50's from McCarthyism.  It appears the left hasn't learned anything from history.  Maybe because they're constantly revising it to fit the narrative. 

I dunno.  Seems like we should be learning from history, not repeating it.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Let's not forget the Hollywood blacklists of the late 40's and 50's from McCarthyism.  It appears the left hasn't learned anything from history.  Maybe because they're constantly revising it to fit the narrative. 

I dunno.  Seems like we should be learning from history, not repeating it.

Today's McCarthyism is much wider reaching and far more impactful.  It is worse in so many ways.  You say one thing or associate with one questionable person and your life can be ruined far worse than any blacklist.  

Edited by jon_mx
  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Today's McCarthyism is much wider reaching and far more impactful.  It is worse in so many ways.  You say one thing or associate with one questionable person and your life can be ruined far worse than any blacklist.  

Exactly, you don't need to be a communist or Communist sympathizer anymore.  That's stuff is now embraced and the tactics used by Communists are the same tactics they are using here. 

You just need to disagree in general with any viewpoint of the left.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, moleculo said:

Shame on the faculty for giving the initial complaints oxygen.  They should have filed the complaints in the round filing cabinet beneath the desk.

This is what I was talking about wrt trolling - was the student truly and irreparably hurt by hearing that word in context?  I don't think any serious argument can be made to justify firing the professor on that basis.

It's up to the powers that be within the St Johns university to not bend to the whims of a disgruntled student.

Which, leads me to my next point: 

Maybe there is more to the story.

Exactly.  I've read enough of these stories to feel comfortable passing judgment with limited information. (Maybe I get it wrong sometimes.)  This teacher appears to have been looking for a conflict.  You can disapprove of cancel culture and still call the teacher out for being a troll.

It reminds me of the story from a few weeks ago where a medical student challenged the claims made by an ultra lib feminist presenter and the fallout led to him being removed from class.  Most sided with the student, and on paper his case appeared strong.  But if you listened to the recordings and heard how he talked, you realized that he has personality disorders and limited control of his emotions.  I disagree with almost everything the ultra libs stand for but they need to be challenged by people who aren't certified themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Let's not forget the Hollywood blacklists of the late 40's and 50's from McCarthyism.  It appears the left hasn't learned anything from history.  Maybe because they're constantly revising it to fit the narrative. 

I dunno.  Seems like we should be learning from history, not repeating it.

This is very upsetting. Your knowledge of history here is as weak and revisionist as it is about the roots of the Democratic Party. I’m not sure if this is trolling at this point or if you are deliberately this ignorant of what actually happened. 


The Hollywood Blacklist amd Red scare were government led movements. The FBI under J Edgar Hoover, along with McCarthy in the Senate and HUAC put tremendous pressure on the Hollywood studios, universities, unions, newspapers, television, etc.  to remove those suspected of sympathy for communism. The incidents that you and others call “cancel culture” have nothing whatsoever to do with pressure from the federal government. Hence your analogy makes no sense. 

There is nothing I love more than 20th century history; it’s literally my favorite subject. But it’s neither pro-liberal or conservative. It is what it is, which is inconsistent, filled with heroes and villains of every political persuasion, and complex characters who were both hero and villain (such as Hoover- despite his villainy in the Red Scare he fought hard as a conservative in a losing effort to prevent the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II. His biggest opponent? Liberal Earl Warren.) 

I urge you to read some of this history- you’ll enjoy it and perhaps shy away from the laziness and simplistic falsehoods of your current assertions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This is very upsetting. Your knowledge of history here is as weak and revisionist as it is about the roots of the Democratic Party. I’m not sure if this is trolling at this point or if you are deliberately this ignorant of what actually happened. 


The Hollywood Blacklist amd Red scare were government led movements. The FBI under J Edgar Hoover, along with McCarthy in the Senate and HUAC put tremendous pressure on the Hollywood studios, universities, unions, newspapers, television, etc.  to remove those suspected of sympathy for communism. The incidents that you and others call “cancel culture” have nothing whatsoever to do with pressure from the federal government. Hence your analogy makes no sense. 

This is all irrelevant.  Blacklisting was bad on its own merits, regardless of who happened to be the driving force behind it.

  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

This is all irrelevant.  Blacklisting was bad on its own merits, regardless of who happened to be the driving force behind it.

That’s not so. Blacklisting child abusers and rapists is just fine with me. I also don’t mind blacklisting Nazis and KKK members. But even in all those cases I’d be troubled greatly if a government entity chose to push for it rather than a groundswell of public pressure. I’m frankly surprised that, as a libertarian, you don’t see that the difference is in fact highly relevant. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This is very upsetting. Your knowledge of history here is as weak and revisionist as it is about the roots of the Democratic Party. I’m not sure if this is trolling at this point or if you are deliberately this ignorant of what actually happened.

 

And you frequently wonder why people don't engage you in any serious discussion. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, timschochet said:

That’s not so. Blacklisting child abusers and rapists is just fine with me. I also don’t mind blacklisting Nazis and KKK members. But even in all those cases I’d be troubled greatly if a government entity chose to push for it rather than a groundswell of public pressure. I’m frankly surprised that, as a libertarian, you don’t see that the difference is in fact highly relevant. 

a) We're not talking about blacklisting child abusers.  We're talking about blacklisting people who have wrongthink.

b) I'm fine with the government blacklisting child abusers.  In fact, I'd go further and argue in favor of a government program that denied child abusers their freedom after some sort of due process.  If only there was some kind of system in place that meted out justice to criminals.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2021 at 6:24 PM, BladeRunner said:

And - here's the kicker - @moleculo seems to ONLY be blaming this on right wing media.  :doh:

Nothing said about the left - it's just right wing outrage which, of course, is BS.  IMO, it was @moleculo's attempt at - once again - bashing the right while leaving "the left" alone as if there is ZERO culpability on their side.

That's Big Tim's angle too.  His media never does wrong but the right media is what's scary.

Cracks me up.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

a) We're not talking about blacklisting child abusers.  We're talking about blacklisting people who have wrongthink.

b) I'm fine with the government blacklisting child abusers.  In fact, I'd go further and argue in favor of a government program that denied child abusers their freedom after some sort of due process.  If only there was some kind of system in place that meted out justice to criminals.  

To me, blacklisting for “wrong think”’is OK as well, so long as it doesn’t come from the government. So long as nobody is forced to do anything, we’re talking about freedom of expression. (The same reason it’s fine for Facebook to restrict Donald Trump and not in any way a form of censorship, Facebook being a private company and not a government entity.) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

To me, blacklisting for “wrong think”’is OK as well, so long as it doesn’t come from the government. So long as nobody is forced to do anything, we’re talking about freedom of expression. (The same reason it’s fine for Facebook to restrict Donald Trump and not in any way a form of censorship, Facebook being a private company and not a government entity.) 

Nope.  It should be legal for Facebook to ban whoever they want, but that doesn't mean it's good for Facebook to ban whoever they want or that Facebook's moderation decisions should be immune from criticism.  I want social media to support free speech norms.  To the extent that they violate free speech norms, I think they should be criticized for that.  Which is what we're doing here.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I will ever not be amazed at the number of people who seem completely incapable of distinguishing between "This think should be legal" and "This thing is good."  Also, of course, the matching pair "This thing should be illegal" and "This thing is bad."  

  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Nope.  It should be legal for Facebook to ban whoever they want, but that doesn't mean it's good for Facebook to ban whoever they want or that Facebook's moderation decisions should be immune from criticism.  I want social media to support free speech norms.  To the extent that they violate free speech norms, I think they should be criticized for that.  Which is what we're doing here.

Of course it’s fine to criticize them. But comparing them to the Red Scare of the 1950s is historically ignorant because of the difference In government involvement, which is the point I was making. It’s not irrelevant; it’s crucial. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this goes here at all, haven’t really posted anything on here since Corona hit. 
Anyway, there has obviously been a huge movement to remove confederate statues from public places for years - decades here in Va where I live.  Recently it has been spearheaded by our Governor Ralph Northam, with the help of Reverend Robert Wright Lee, VI.  He’s the fourth great nephew of General Robert E Lee, or actually turns out he isn’t.  

This guy, for years, has been portraying himself as something he isn’t - a relative of Lee.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...