Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

“Cancel Culture” and “Woke”


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

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. 

No it isn't.  I hate communism, but it was bad to blacklist communists in the 1950s.  I would also argue against blacklisting communists now.  Don't care who's doing it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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. 

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. 

This is far and away the biggest example of a pot calling the kettle black I have ever EVER seen on this board.   

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

No it isn't.  I hate communism, but it was bad to blacklist communists in the 1950s.  I would also argue against blacklisting communists now.  Don't care who's doing it.

We’ll have to disagree then. It’s absolutely crucial who’s doing it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You’re misstating what I wrote. I never said “good”. I wrote “OK” and “fine”. Those terms refer to legal status.  “Good” has a totally different meaning. I reserve judgment on whether something is good or bad, based on the specific instance in each time. 

I appreciate you clarifying what you were trying to say, but I didn't misstate anything.  You mispoke.  That's fine -- it happens to all of us from time to time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

This is far and away the biggest example of a pot calling the kettle black I have ever EVER seen on this board.   

it sure is.

:potkettle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

We’ll have to disagree then. It’s absolutely crucial who’s doing it. 

No it isn't.  I work in higher ed.  I know a bunch of people who are communists of one flavor or another.  I think they're deeply mistaken, but I have no interest in seeing them lose their livelihood or driven from polite society because they made some intellectual errors.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2021 at 11:05 PM, 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.  

On the surface I understand what you are saying. But this is kind of the intersection of 2 issues that ultimately creating the cancel culture as we see it. 

 

issue 1: We cant teach or speak on historical documents, stories or ideas that may contain unfortunate language or depiction of past transgressions as truly "historical" and be able to separate them from the teacher, lecturer or general conversation. The thought process now is that "if you mention it, you automatically believe it" and there is no way to teach history or provide insight into past ideas without talking about it. 

issue 2. Some people do not have the ability to process their feelings and separate what is meant to be educational or justified vs a perceived personal attack on them. In the article the one student in question had to "abruptly" leave the call because of an "inappropriate slur." Really? You were so shook by what would be considered common place in movies and in music that you could not continue with listening to a lecture? So either you have someone who is incapable of dealing with everyday life or (and even worse) was looking for that "gotcha moment" where they can gain "clout" by basically bullying someone who is supposed to be their superior (the professor) and gain some form of personal enjoyment out of ruining someone else's career. 


Now to be a bit hypocritical, I did bow to the potential treat of CC. I'm an adjunct professor, teaching graphic design. In one of my lessons about "visual storytelling" I did have a slide about how an "image can tell a story without any words". To illustrate it, I used he example of the same OJ Simpson mug shot on the cover of 2 different magazines where one was photoshopped darker to make him appear more black and in turn more guilty. While it is a solid representation of the topic, I pulled it b/c I fear potential backlash from a student who would prefer to run to administration rather than have a conversation with me. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, glvsav37 said:

On the surface I understand what you are saying. But this is kind of the intersection of 2 issues that ultimately creating the cancel culture as we see it. 

 

issue 1: We cant teach or speak on historical documents, stories or ideas that may contain unfortunate language or depiction of past transgressions as truly "historical" and be able to separate them from the teacher, lecturer or general conversation. The thought process now is that "if you mention it, you automatically believe it" and there is no way to teach history or provide insight into past ideas without talking about it. 

issue 2. Some people do not have the ability to process their feelings and separate what is meant to be educational or justified vs a perceived personal attack on them. In the article the one student in question had to "abruptly" leave the call because of an "inappropriate slur." Really? You were so shook by what would be considered common place in movies and in music that you could not continue with listening to a lecture? So either you have someone who is incapable of dealing with everyday life or (and even worse) was looking for that "gotcha moment" where they can gain "clout" by basically bullying someone who is supposed to be their superior (the professor) and gain some form of personal enjoyment out of ruining someone else's career. 


Now to be a bit hypocritical, I did bow to the potential treat of CC. I'm an adjunct professor, teaching graphic design. In one of my lessons about "visual storytelling" I did have a slide about how an "image can tell a story without any words". To illustrate it, I used he example of the same OJ Simpson mug shot on the cover of 2 different magazines where one was photoshopped darker to make him appear more black and in turn more guilty. While it is a solid representation of the topic, I pulled it b/c I fear potential backlash from a student who would prefer to run to administration rather than have a conversation with me. 
 

While I obviously can't speak with any certainty about the people involved in this one particular story -- it would not surprise me at all if the instructor's dismissal was motivated by something else entirely -- the bolded part is spot on.  It's important to recognize that this behavior is, in most cases, just another variety of bullying.  It's motivated by meanness and psychopathy, and we're usually making a mistake by engaging with these sorts of claims as if they were made by well-intentioned actors acting in good faith.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I appreciate you clarifying what you were trying to say, but I didn't misstate anything.  You mispoke.  That's fine -- it happens to all of us from time to time.  

I misspeak all the time. And I almost always acknowledge it. I didn’t misspeak here. You misstated what I wrote. You claimed I wrote it was good; I did not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

No it isn't.  I hate communism, but it was bad to blacklist communists in the 1950s.  I would also argue against blacklisting communists now.  Don't care who's doing it.

There is no connection, no reasonable comparison between what happened during the Red Scare and what you guys are complaining about in this thread. It’s absurd; it reminds me of the PETA folks who used to compare our treatment of livestock to Dachau. I’m not surprised that @BladeRunnerwould make this sort of analogy; he consistently allows his political tribalism to shape his historical assumptions, but I’m very surprised that you would join him in this. It makes no sense. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, timschochet said:

There is no connection, no reasonable comparison between what happened during the Red Scare and what you guys are complaining about in this thread. It’s absurd; it reminds me of the PETA folks who used to compare our treatment of livestock to Dachau. I’m not surprised that @BladeRunnerwould make this sort of analogy; he consistently allows his political tribalism to shape his historical assumptions, but I’m very surprised that you would join him in this. It makes no sense. 

Its clear you're having a hard time grasping what Ivan and I are trying to get you to understand.

Ivan laid it out PERFECTLY as far as I'm concerned.  The blacklisting and cancelling of people who don't bend the knee to the lefty ideology is no different than what happened in the 50s.  You would think the left would have learned that blacklisting/cancelling is not good at all.  Apparently you all forgot how bad that was a you seem to think its okay.

Your the one acting tribally.  I simply can't believe you don't see the parallels.  I think its more that you don't want to because doing it means you have to face some harsh truths.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

 

Your the one acting tribally.  I simply can't believe you don't see the parallels.  I think its more that you don't want to.

 

Edited by identikit
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Itsclear you're having a hard time grasping what Ivan and I are trying to get you to understand.

Ivan laid it out PERFECTLY as far as I'm concerned.  The blacklisting and cancelling of people who don't bend the knee to the lefty ideology is no different than what happened in the 50s.  You would think the left would have learned that blacklisting/cancelling is not good at all.  Apparently you all forgot how bad that was a you seem to think its okay.

Your the one acting tribally.  I simply can't believe you don't see the parallels.  I think its more that you don't want to.

It's not that. He doesn't understand.  That's all.   He isn't being a troll, he just doesn't get it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Everyone should just put him on ignore and let him talk himself to death.  

“Everyone” meaning yourself, @identikit, @supermike80, and @BladeRunner? In other words, the 4 of the most tribalistic, “I will accept whatever facts fit my already held POV and ignore everything that doesn’t” folks in this forum? 
 

Go right ahead. I’d prefer if you did. Especially you, creepy guy who actually spends time counting my posts. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Caveman33 said:

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.

Teacng Huck Finn = Looking for trouble.

This country is going down the toilet. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Everyone should just put him on ignore and let him talk himself to death.  

Like I have said, I honestly think this board has moved past him.

The days of finding a CNN article and coming here to discuss it seems to be gone.  There is a greater concentration of people who actually can think for themselves here now, and Tim doesn't mesh with that at all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

“Everyone” meaning yourself, @identikit, @supermike80, and @BladeRunner? In other words, the 4 of the most tribalistic, “I will accept whatever facts fit my already held POV and ignore everything that doesn’t” folks in this forum? 
 

Go right ahead. I’d prefer if you did. Especially you, creepy guy who actually spends time counting my posts. 

This is you, Tim.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Like I have said, I honestly think this board has moved past him.

The days of finding a CNN article and coming here to discuss it seems to be gone.  There is a greater concentration of people who actually can think for themselves here now, and Tim doesn't mesh with that at all.

I don’t mesh with ignoring facts in favor of ignorance, lies, false history and disreputable sources. That’s true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Is it? The amount of times I’ve changed my position based on new evidence, even in this forum, is pretty long. 

So says you.

 I don't think of you as a 'wrongthinker' worthy of being blacklisted.

So there's a difference.

 

Edited by identikit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, timschochet said:

“Everyone” meaning yourself, @identikit, @supermike80, and @BladeRunner? In other words, the 4 of the most tribalistic, “I will accept whatever facts fit my already held POV and ignore everything that doesn’t” folks in this forum? 
 

Go right ahead. I’d prefer if you did. Especially you, creepy guy who actually spends time counting my posts. 

Just admit you have a crush on him.  Geez

  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours 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.) 

Colleges are pretty much against freedom of expression these days - unless its their agenda.  

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sand said:

Professor has his book about historians cancelled after it didn't have enough black historians.  And after he wrote another 18,000 words adding in profiles to provide a larger representation of black historians.

We're getting directly into the realm on book burnings if imaginary quotas on accepted thought aren't adhered to.  

I was just thinking about this one again this morning.  Now I know nothing about historians or what the list of "greatest" historians should look like.  But, being in the hard sciences, I did think about what a list of the greatest physicists would be (stolen from an article):

Albert Einstein

Isaac Newton

James Clerk Maxwell

Niels Bohr

Werner Heisenberg

Galileo Galilei

Richard Feynman

Paul Dirac

Erwin Schrodinger

Ernest Rutherford

 

They're all white guys - i.e. sometimes history serves up monolithic answers..  Should we cancel all books about the greatest physicists of all time because there is no diversity there? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Sand said:

I was just thinking about this one again this morning.  Now I know nothing about historians or what the list of "greatest" historians should look like.  But, being in the hard sciences, I did think about what a list of the greatest physicists would be (stolen from an article):

Albert Einstein

Isaac Newton

James Clerk Maxwell

Niels Bohr

Werner Heisenberg

Galileo Galilei

Richard Feynman

Paul Dirac

Erwin Schrodinger

Ernest Rutherford

 

They're all white guys - i.e. sometimes history serves up monolithic answers..  Should we cancel all books about the greatest physicists of all time because there is no diversity there? 

Democrats:  Yes.  Absolutely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Yes, all Democrats are a monolithic group who would support this.   Absurd.

I know, right?  Yet here we are in 2021 having to bend the knee to the left who support this stuff.  

This stuff isn't coming from the right.  :shrug:  

You guys are voting these people into office and now you're saying you don't support it?  Show your non-support by NOT voting for the leaders who are pushing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

I know, right?  Yet here we are in 2021 having to bend the knee to the left who support this stuff.  

This stuff isn't coming from the right.  :shrug:  

You guys are voting these people into office and now you're saying you don't support it?  Show your non-support by NOT voting for the leaders who are pushing this.

Which leaders do you see supporting and pushing this?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alex P Keaton said:

Which leaders do you see supporting and pushing this?

Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Harris, "The Squad", etc...  And many more from the local and state level.

TBH, I don't think Biden would normally support this but it's clear someone else is steering the ship and he's just being trotted out to make it "look" official.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Harris, "The Squad", etc...  And many more from the local and state level.

TBH, I don't think Biden would normally support this but it's clear someone else is steering the ship and he's just being trotted out to make it "look" official.

Fair enough.  I'm more active in state/local politics, and this is a topic that is an absolute deal killer for me.   I've gotten into it with the local Dem party chair and a number of candidates.   Let's just say that I have personally experienced the negative spillover of speaking out for rationality on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Fair enough.  I'm more active in state/local politics, and this is a topic that is an absolute deal killer for me.   I've gotten into it with the local Dem party chair and a number of candidates.   Let's just say that I have personally experienced the negative spillover of speaking out for rationality on this topic.

Thank you for your service.  :thumbup:

I wish there were more Democrats like you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Democrats:  Yes.  Absolutely.

I wasn't trying to get into the us/them realm.  Just pointing out that history doesn't serve up diversity.  It serves up history.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Fair enough.  I'm more active in state/local politics, and this is a topic that is an absolute deal killer for me.   I've gotten into it with the local Dem party chair and a number of candidates.   Let's just say that I have personally experienced the negative spillover of speaking out for rationality on this topic.

Personally i think local and state politics are more interesting, and one can make a greater impact.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, glvsav37 said:

On the surface I understand what you are saying. But this is kind of the intersection of 2 issues that ultimately creating the cancel culture as we see it. 

 

issue 1: We cant teach or speak on historical documents, stories or ideas that may contain unfortunate language or depiction of past transgressions as truly "historical" and be able to separate them from the teacher, lecturer or general conversation. The thought process now is that "if you mention it, you automatically believe it" and there is no way to teach history or provide insight into past ideas without talking about it. 

issue 2. Some people do not have the ability to process their feelings and separate what is meant to be educational or justified vs a perceived personal attack on them. In the article the one student in question had to "abruptly" leave the call because of an "inappropriate slur." Really? You were so shook by what would be considered common place in movies and in music that you could not continue with listening to a lecture? So either you have someone who is incapable of dealing with everyday life or (and even worse) was looking for that "gotcha moment" where they can gain "clout" by basically bullying someone who is supposed to be their superior (the professor) and gain some form of personal enjoyment out of ruining someone else's career. 


Now to be a bit hypocritical, I did bow to the potential treat of CC. I'm an adjunct professor, teaching graphic design. In one of my lessons about "visual storytelling" I did have a slide about how an "image can tell a story without any words". To illustrate it, I used he example of the same OJ Simpson mug shot on the cover of 2 different magazines where one was photoshopped darker to make him appear more black and in turn more guilty. While it is a solid representation of the topic, I pulled it b/c I fear potential backlash from a student who would prefer to run to administration rather than have a conversation with me. 
 

I pretty much agree with everything you said. It is unfortunate that one student had to make an issue out of it, but that is the culture we live in now.   Best to not chance it and err on the side of caution.  Like I said earlier, the lesson on Mark Twain could have easily been given without actually saying the n-word.  And I think more people than just the "easily offended" wouldn't want to hear the particular racial slur in a classroom, even if presented in the context of history or art.  Sadly, administrations and companies cave to the easily offended nowadays far too often, which is why those feel they can just run and complain and basically scare them into doing something.  Imagine if they had not. That student then runs to the media and the next thing you know, "University supports professor who used racial slurs" is splashed all over the 'net, and the Twitter mob goes nuts. 

As for your personal example, I don't see you as having bowed to CC per se, but adjusting to the changing times and erring on the side of caution. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Teacng Huck Finn = Looking for trouble.

This country is going down the toilet. 

It was Pudd'nhead Wilson that she was reading from--not that I had ever heard of Pudd'nhead before. Was it really necessary to read that particular passage?  The professor could have said n-word, bleep, or some other substitute.  That suggestion might sound ridiculous but the SJWs wield immense power, especially in education. It seems the professor was very naive if she did not anticipate this possible outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Caveman33 said:

It was Pudd'nhead Wilson that she was reading from--not that I had ever heard of Pudd'nhead before. Was it really necessary to read that particular passage?  The professor could have said n-word, bleep, or some other substitute.  That suggestion might sound ridiculous but the SJWs wield immense power, especially in education. It seems the professor was very naive if she did not anticipate this possible outcome.

I think she still would have been in the same trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NBC - no comedies on their slate in the fall.  First time in 50 years.

You can't be funny anymore.  Too many outrage receptacles waiting to spring into action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sand said:

NBC - no comedies on their slate in the fall.  First time in 50 years.

You can't be funny anymore.  Too many outrage receptacles waiting to spring into action.

I was kind of hoping there would be no NBC, CBS and ABC on the slate at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sand said:

NBC - no comedies on their slate in the fall.  First time in 50 years.

You can't be funny anymore.  Too many outrage receptacles waiting to spring into action.

People still watch network television?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sand said:

NBC - no comedies on their slate in the fall.  First time in 50 years.

You can't be funny anymore.  Too many outrage receptacles waiting to spring into action.

what will we do without shows like Two and Half Men??!  ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FairWarning said:

If they showed Friends of Seinfeld today, what would be offensive?  I’m sure there is something.  Probably no gay characters to start.

Seriously?  Both have already been skewered for not being diverse enough

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-52976549

https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/07/opinion/granderson-seinfeld-diversity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the video is the Rubin Report from Blaze, so I know it is skewed conservative, but its an interview with the producers and film makers of a new documentary called "The Woke Reformation" 

Interesting conversation. At times the producers seem more focused on destruction than the people they are against, but I'm keeping an eye on this and will prob watch it when it comes out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FairWarning said:

If they showed Friends of Seinfeld today, what would be offensive?  I’m sure there is something.  Probably no gay characters to start.

There is at least one Seinfeld episode they don’t air anymore as it’s seen as offensive - the one with the wooden smoking Indian. There may be others.  

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

Interesting first amendment case.   Kid is arrested under a 1917 statute ("ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race") for posting racist stuff about a classmate. 

It will be interesting to see if this law gets tossed - I doubt it's been applied in a long time.  Seems like an easy declaration that the law is unconstitutional.   This is a deep blue state, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sand said:

Interesting first amendment case.   Kid is arrested under a 1917 statute ("ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race") for posting racist stuff about a classmate. 

It will be interesting to see if this law gets tossed - I doubt it's been applied in a long time.  Seems like an easy declaration that the law is unconstitutional.   This is a deep blue state, though.

Open and shut first amendment case.  It's clear cut enough that the person who decided to bring charges should probably be removed from his or her position of authority.

Link to comment
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...