International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Continuation Cancel culture IRL Part 2 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=354396)

d4m10n 20th October 2021 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 13634797)
But not only is he not in serious danger of being pulled, the publicity will be good for his viewing figures.

I share the intuition that he's not in serious danger of being pulled, but I've been surprised enough (on this topic) not to trust my intuitions.

Emily's Cat 20th October 2021 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13634659)
Oh, I don’t expect Joe Rogan, or anyone else, to never offend anyone. It’s that when they do, they’re going to hear about it. And why shouldn’t they? Only Joe Rogan gets to have an opinion? Telling people to grow up and stop complaining because they’re offended by something you feel they shouldn’t be isnt even that dissimilar to be honest.

Well no, I don't think they should stop complaining because I don't think they should be offended by it. Sometimes I'm the one offended. I think they should grow up and stop complaining about it because everyone gets offended by stuff sometimes, and any single person's personal offense shouldn't obligate other people to take any action. It's not Joe's job to make sure that Betty is never offended. Betty can be as offended as Betty gets, but oh well. That's 90% of the time Betty's problem, not Joe's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13634659)
But, Joe Rogan doesn’t have to accept or apologize or even listen to the criticism and complaints either. I think it’s still fair for anyone to have an opinion on Joe Rogan and say what it is

Anyway, I don’t think enduring abuse on the principal that being offended is somehow not an acceptable reason to speak up is a great approach. If it works for you, which it doesn’t sound like it is, great. I don’t think it’s a universally accepted idea, or often even a good one. If someone does something that bothers you, maybe you should tell them.

I think it's more a matter of having some perspective on when the insult is intentional and when it's not, as well as when it's material and worth raising hell about. And I think a lot of people make a habit of getting offended and then using their hurt feelings to push people around.

Do you recall that splash ad by Dove several years back? It was for a body wash for all bodies, and the splash ad showed various females taking off their shirts, and as each raised the shirt over their head, they turned into the next female. There was a hispanic female who turned into a black female who turned into a white female who turned into a hispanic female and so on forever. Someone got offended because the black female was being turned into a white female, which meant somehow that Dove thought all black females are dirty. It was frankly ludicrous that an inclusive ad showing females of many races on equal footing was taken to be offensive. It got enough attention on social media that Dove ended up pulling the ad and apologizing.

That's the kind of thing where I think people need to grow up. It's obvious that Dove wasn't being insensitive or insulting. It was a perfectly fine ad. But some few people made an effort to be offended and got enough other professionally offended folks to make a stink about it.

It was dumb. It didn't address racial disparities or negative stereotypes in any fashion at all. It was performative.

Emily's Cat 20th October 2021 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13634675)
Nope, what they are demanding IS commonsense and tolerance - the demand you don't see is for Dave Chappelle to be cancelled! The claim that this comedian is being cancelled is complete and utter bull-****. No such thing is happening. Those who are protesting his transphobic comments are not trying to cancel him, they are trying to address the shortcomings of a workplace that is intolerant of them.

People have no control over whether they are trans, or gay or identify as a different gender to their physiological sex at birth. Its not a disease or an ailment of any kind. They are who they are, and its something they cannot do anything about. They should not be discriminated against because of it.

They want their workplace to be the way society should be, a place where being transexual or gay or gender neutral, is simply accepted as normal, and uncontroversial, where there is nothing to see here, where being these things is not even a topic of conversation.. where it simply is what it is.

Society should give special privileges to them?

Because that's what they're asking for in their demand. The existing equity fund isn't sufficient - they demand a special fund JUST FOR trans talent. Do any other groups get special funds just for them?

They demand more trans content on Netflix. Is Netflix's current trans content lower than the population proportion that trans people represent? Do other groups get to demand increases in content featuring their identities? Or is it only trans people that get extra content?

They demand a revision of processes for commissioning or releasing "potentially harmful" content, based on whether people in the trans community think it's "harmful". Do other groups get to define what constitutes "potentially harmful" content for them, and demand policies to address that?

They want to add warnings and disclaimers to things they decide are "anti-trans", and they want Netflix to suggest "trans affirming" stuff alongside anything labeled "anti trans". Do any other groups get to label content that they alone decide is "anti" their group? Do they get to insist that Netflix include recommended "pro" their group stuff alongside it?

This isn't a request for being treated fairly and with respect. This is a demand that they get special treatment.

dirtywick 20th October 2021 05:22 PM

https://www.google.com/amp/s/people....ts/%3famp=true

Aaron Rodgers runs in a touchdown to seal the game and yells that he owns the Bears at some Bears fans that were none too happy about losing the game. Most non Bears fans thought this was awesome and it goes viral. Goes on bizarre word salad rant about how unfair he’s been treated and how he won’t be silenced by woke cancel culture.

Emily's Cat 20th October 2021 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13634855)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/people....ts/%3famp=true

Aaron Rodgers runs in a touchdown to seal the game and yells that he owns the Bears at some Bears fans that were none too happy about losing the game. Most non Bears fans thought this was awesome and it goes viral. Goes on bizarre word salad rant about how unfair he’s been treated and how he won’t be silenced by woke cancel culture.

I'm gonna go ahead and toss that into the "people need to grow up and get over it" bucket. Both for this guy and the offended bears fans.

angrysoba 20th October 2021 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13634846)
Society should give special privileges to them?

Because that's what they're asking for in their demand. The existing equity fund isn't sufficient - they demand a special fund JUST FOR trans talent. Do any other groups get special funds just for them?

They demand more trans content on Netflix. Is Netflix's current trans content lower than the population proportion that trans people represent? Do other groups get to demand increases in content featuring their identities? Or is it only trans people that get extra content?

They demand a revision of processes for commissioning or releasing "potentially harmful" content, based on whether people in the trans community think it's "harmful". Do other groups get to define what constitutes "potentially harmful" content for them, and demand policies to address that?

They want to add warnings and disclaimers to things they decide are "anti-trans", and they want Netflix to suggest "trans affirming" stuff alongside anything labeled "anti trans". Do any other groups get to label content that they alone decide is "anti" their group? Do they get to insist that Netflix include recommended "pro" their group stuff alongside it?

This isn't a request for being treated fairly and with respect. This is a demand that they get special treatment.

I don’t know about Netflix, but there are of course numerous warnings that appear on some streaming services. I saw one on Amazon Prine that warned the characters smoked. Similarly I think Disney plus mentions that the shows have ethnic stereotypes. It wouldn’t seem too outlandish to me to have warnings about sexual violence or misogyny. This is one of those things where people might instinctively think “that’s madness!” Then think about it for a bit and decide, “actually, it might be fairly reasonable after all.”

Banning Smoking in pubs was once in the “that’s madness!” Bucket. But now it’s completely normal to have no smoking in pubs. In fact it is weird to have smoking permitted in indoor public places at all.

d4m10n 20th October 2021 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13634855)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/people....ts/%3famp=true

Aaron Rodgers runs in a touchdown to seal the game and yells that he owns the Bears at some Bears fans that were none too happy about losing the game. Most non Bears fans thought this was awesome and it goes viral. Goes on bizarre word salad rant about how unfair he’s been treated and how he won’t be silenced by woke cancel culture.

As a Chicago-born lifetime Bears fan, Rodgers is talking the kind of smack every NFL fan should expect. He shouldn't be cancelled (of course) and I doubt very many people are tryna get him canceled, even in Chicago.

smartcooky 20th October 2021 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13634846)
Society should give special privileges to them?

Society should simply regard them as part of Society, as normal and stop discriminating against them. If this were to happen, there would be no need for "special privileges" because they would be treated as equals and normal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13634846)
Because that's what they're asking for in their demand.

Nope, and if that is your takeaway, then you, and people like you, are part of the problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13634846)
The existing equity fund isn't sufficient - they demand a special fund JUST FOR trans talent. Do any other groups get special funds just for them?

People who are not trans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13634846)
They demand more trans content on Netflix. Is Netflix's current trans content lower than the population proportion that trans people represent? Do other groups get to demand increases in content featuring their identities? Or is it only trans people that get extra content?

Zero is lower that the proportion of people who are trans, so yes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13634846)
They demand a revision of processes for commissioning or releasing "potentially harmful" content, based on whether people in the trans community think it's "harmful". Do other groups get to define what constitutes "potentially harmful" content for them, and demand policies to address that?

Yes, they do.

Have you never seen these on a TV program

G, Y, Y7, PG, 14, MA

How about these

D, L, S, V, FV

G - General Audience
Y - Appropriate for all children
Y7 - unsuitable for children under 7 years of age.
PG - Parental Guidance recommended
14 - unsuitable for children under 14 years of age
MA - unsuitable for children under 17 years ofage.

D –Suggestive dialogue
L –Coarse or crude language
S –Sexual situations
V – Violence
FV –Fantasy violence
MA - Mature audiences

These warnings are specifically for groups, like parents of young children, those who might be upset by violence, those who don't want to be surprised by sexual content that might find content disturbing or harmful.
Why do you think these content advisories came about in the first place?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13634846)
They want to add warnings and disclaimers to things they decide are "anti-trans", and they want Netflix to suggest "trans affirming" stuff alongside anything labeled "anti trans". Do any other groups get to label content that they alone decide is "anti" their group? Do they get to insist that Netflix include recommended "pro" their group stuff alongside it?

See above

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13634846)
This isn't a request for being treated fairly and with respect. This is a demand that they get special treatment.

First the damage has to be undone, the anti-trans, anti LGBTQ, racist and bigoted attitudes of people needs to be changed. That takes treating oppressed groups more fairly and in a less discriminatory manner, and sometimes yes, that means giving them special treatment to compensate or offset the actions and attitudes of bigots, until the wrongs are righted. It also requires certain members of Society to face the harsh reality that they are bigoted ********* that need to be smacked down hard for their bigotry!
.
.

lionking 20th October 2021 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides (Post 13634755)
FIRE

“I hope my story can salvage some measure of integrity in higher education,” said Earnest. “Universities must give more weight to the devastating, long-term effects of their actions on hard-working career academics like myself than they do to the short-term pleasure of being perceived as ‘right’ in the eyes of a small but vocal group of students.”

The linked story is a little too complex to summarize easily. I would like to highlight one aspect of this incident, namely the outrage that the students claimed to feel. I respectfully but strongly question whether the students really were as upset by this as their words and actions suggest. That goes double for the boulder that the University of Wisconsin moved (see upthread). Some have dubbed this performance art. That's a little too kind IMO.

This is appalling. The professor did not put the names on the board, and simply expressed an opinion that the students who walked out over reacted. Yet he’s been suspended and likely fired.

I have always liked to believe that universities were bastions of freedom, tolerance, free expression and principle. Not places of censorship and cowardice. My beliefs are changing.

angrysoba 20th October 2021 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13634820)
Well no, I don't think they should stop complaining because I don't think they should be offended by it. Sometimes I'm the one offended. I think they should grow up and stop complaining about it because everyone gets offended by stuff sometimes, and any single person's personal offense shouldn't obligate other people to take any action. It's not Joe's job to make sure that Betty is never offended. Betty can be as offended as Betty gets, but oh well. That's 90% of the time Betty's problem, not Joe's.



I think it's more a matter of having some perspective on when the insult is intentional and when it's not, as well as when it's material and worth raising hell about. And I think a lot of people make a habit of getting offended and then using their hurt feelings to push people around.

Do you recall that splash ad by Dove several years back? It was for a body wash for all bodies, and the splash ad showed various females taking off their shirts, and as each raised the shirt over their head, they turned into the next female. There was a hispanic female who turned into a black female who turned into a white female who turned into a hispanic female and so on forever. Someone got offended because the black female was being turned into a white female, which meant somehow that Dove thought all black females are dirty. It was frankly ludicrous that an inclusive ad showing females of many races on equal footing was taken to be offensive. It got enough attention on social media that Dove ended up pulling the ad and apologizing.

That's the kind of thing where I think people need to grow up. It's obvious that Dove wasn't being insensitive or insulting. It was a perfectly fine ad. But some few people made an effort to be offended and got enough other professionally offended folks to make a stink about it.

It was dumb. It didn't address racial disparities or negative stereotypes in any fashion at all. It was performative.

Performative whining is pretty much how I would sum up the whole IDW thing. The Weinsteins (or should that be Whinesteins - Lol!), Dave Rubin, Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay etc…. Performatively complaining about how the world has gone made rather than just acknowledging maybe they are just bog-standard reactionaries complaining about the youth of today.

smartcooky 20th October 2021 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13634927)
This is appalling. The professor did not put the names on the board, and simply expressed an opinion that the students who walked out over reacted. Yet he’s been suspended and likely fired.

I have always liked to believe that universities were bastions of freedom, tolerance, free expression and principle. Not places of censorship and cowardice. My beliefs are changing.

The problem with this is there are a number of academics who use this "freedom, tolerance, free expression and principle" as a cover for their bigotry. Having some alphabet soup after their names doesn't automatically make them nice people who wouldn't call a black person a ******.

(This from someone who does have some alphabet soup after his name)

dirtywick 20th October 2021 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13634870)
As a Chicago-born lifetime Bears fan, Rodgers is talking the kind of smack every NFL fan should expect. He shouldn't be cancelled (of course) and I doubt very many people are tryna get him canceled, even in Chicago.

Well, I agree, there doesn't appear to be a mob trying to cancel him. He's talking about how unfairly he's been treated, and how he won't cave to woke PC culture, when he went viral because people thought it was cool. Most people were happy he was fired up and looking like the league MVP. That's what makes his rant so bizarre.

lionking 20th October 2021 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13634959)
The problem with this is there are a number of academics who use this "freedom, tolerance, free expression and principle" as a cover for their bigotry. Having some alphabet soup after their names doesn't automatically make them nice people who wouldn't call a black person a ******.

(This from someone who does have some alphabet soup after his name)

Not a factor in this case. Did you read the article?

smartcooky 20th October 2021 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13634977)
Not a factor in this case. Did you read the article?

You were generalising... "I have always liked to believe that universities were bastions of freedom, tolerance, free expression and principle" - I was also generalising, in reply.

And, no, I haven't read the article, and I have no intention of doing so.

Chris_Halkides 21st October 2021 04:15 AM

It is not a long article
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13635017)
And, no, I haven't read the article, and I have no intention of doing so.

Why not?

SuburbanTurkey 21st October 2021 04:55 AM

Incoming cancellation

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1...xpto9X1rg&s=19

angrysoba 21st October 2021 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13635117)

Oh my word. That's super cringe, but honestly, I would just prefer her principal to say, "Look, could you please NOT do this in maths class. It does look pretty racist."

ponderingturtle 21st October 2021 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13634846)
Society should give special privileges to them?

Just like they gave the gays special privilege's with gay marriage.

Now I want there to be more openly racist comedians given specials on, after all why should black people be given special privilege's?

Hey I see a bright future in giving Jon Gruden comedy specials for his innovate take on race and sex. Netflix is entirely immoral to not give him a large payment for a comedy special.

ponderingturtle 21st October 2021 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13634959)
The problem with this is there are a number of academics who use this "freedom, tolerance, free expression and principle" as a cover for their bigotry. Having some alphabet soup after their names doesn't automatically make them nice people who wouldn't call a black person a ******.

Oh come on it is funny why are you trying to cancel someone for a simple joke?

ponderingturtle 21st October 2021 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13635117)

Come on it is just funny. Why trying to make it out as some kind of racist act just because it was? Racist comedy is still comedy and so should always be allowed. I see a netflix special in her future.

Darat 21st October 2021 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 13635124)
Oh my word. That's super cringe, but honestly, I would just prefer her principal to say, "Look, could you please NOT do this in maths class. It does look pretty racist."

Not even that for me - it would be "I know you want to bring maths alive for your students and help them with trigonometry, but you look like an idiot"

ponderingturtle 21st October 2021 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13635138)
Not even that for me - it would be "I know you want to bring maths alive for your students and help them with trigonometry, but you look like an idiot"

What teachers have the right to harass and belittle their students for any reason they deem appropriate, though race and sexuality are of course popular favorites.

Next you will be thinking that maybe a white supremacist podcast is not an appropriate hobby for a teacher? Why who better to present both sides of the history of the holocaust?

lionking 21st October 2021 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides (Post 13635109)
Why not?

Because it would be uncomfortable for him

pgwenthold 21st October 2021 06:28 AM

How can I offend thee, let me count the ways....

Teacher uses, um, questionable methods for teaching trigonometry.

https://twitter.com/UrbanInuk/status...89276557025280

Whatever happened to "Some Old Horse Came A-Hopping Through Our Alley"?

No word on whether she has been fired yet...or "put on administrative leave" even.

angrysoba 21st October 2021 06:33 AM

She's definitely pretty committed to her performance by the looks of things....

https://twitter.com/CommunistsEgirl/...58863541719040

SuburbanTurkey 21st October 2021 08:24 AM

A simply baffling level of bad judgement at work here. It's really hard to imagine why anyone would think this was appropriate, unless this was some stunt to get fired intentionally.

pgwenthold 21st October 2021 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13635300)
A simply baffling level of bad judgement at work here. It's really hard to imagine why anyone would think this was appropriate, unless this was some stunt to get fired intentionally.

It's not like she is some 65 year old person claiming, "Well it was acceptable when I started doing it back in 1980"

Apparently she has been doing this for almost 10 years. No, it was not considered acceptable back in 2012. Protests against the Braves's and Florida St "tomahawk chop" go back to at least 1994.

Yes, it is a baffling lack of awareness. This is why I would not want her to continue teaching. Anyone so completely clueless on this is not someone I would trust.

I've seen some suggesting that "oh, the principal just needs to have a talk with her," but I don't see it. Does she really need to be told this is inappropriate?

(the sadder ones are those who are actually trying to excuse it because, hey, she's trying to teach a difficult subject. Um, no)

ponderingturtle 21st October 2021 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 13635316)
It's not like she is some 65 year old person claiming, "Well it was acceptable when I started doing it back in 1980"

Apparently she has been doing this for almost 10 years. No, it was not considered acceptable back in 2012. Protests against the Braves's and Florida St "tomahawk chop" go back to at least 1994.

Yes, it is a baffling lack of awareness. This is why I would not want her to continue teaching. Anyone so completely clueless on this is not someone I would trust.

I've seen some suggesting that "oh, the principal just needs to have a talk with her," but I don't see it. Does she really need to be told this is inappropriate?

(the sadder ones are those who are actually trying to excuse it because, hey, she's trying to teach a difficult subject. Um, no)

Is this something that is made more or less outrageous by watching the video with the sound off?

SuburbanTurkey 21st October 2021 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 13635316)
It's not like she is some 65 year old person claiming, "Well it was acceptable when I started doing it back in 1980"



Apparently she has been doing this for almost 10 years. No, it was not considered acceptable back in 2012. Protests against the Braves's and Florida St "tomahawk chop" go back to at least 1994.



Yes, it is a baffling lack of awareness. This is why I would not want her to continue teaching. Anyone so completely clueless on this is not someone I would trust.



I've seen some suggesting that "oh, the principal just needs to have a talk with her," but I don't see it. Does she really need to be told this is inappropriate?



(the sadder ones are those who are actually trying to excuse it because, hey, she's trying to teach a difficult subject. Um, no)

Popehat, aka Ken White, out of LA has this to say about Riverside:

Quote:

Riverside, where this happened, is east of Los Angeles in the Inland Empire. It’s super-diverse but also has a very strong contingent of white folks like this.
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1...416811524?s=19

So maybe this lady is living in some bubble where this very racist routine might seem normal. I'm not familiar with the area but this local isn't exactly doing them any favors for their reputation.

pgwenthold 21st October 2021 11:20 AM

She is now on "leave"

until it blows over? I hope not.

smartcooky 21st October 2021 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides (Post 13635109)
Why not?

Because

1. The petty bickering that goes on in academia is of little interest to me, and

2. I already know that FIRE defends speech I find unacceptable and indefensible, and

3. Any organisation that advocates allowing scumbags like Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, Bill Ayers and Ben "Uncle Tom" Carson a platform to open their vile mouths in front of university students is not an organisation I have any interest in hearing from.

I would no more read a FIRE article than I would read an article on OAN or Newsmax.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13635149)
Because it would be uncomfortable for him

True. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of an organisation with a clearly Liberal bias supporting the speech of predominantly bigots and racists on the far right, and doing so under the cover of advocating "academic freedom of speech".

d4m10n 21st October 2021 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13635464)
Any organisation that advocates allowing scumbags like Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, Bill Ayers and Ben "Uncle Tom" Carson a platform to open their vile mouths in front of university students is not an organisation I have any interest in hearing from.

At least you're upfront trying to censor ideas you don't like. [emoji106]

lionking 21st October 2021 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13635464)


True. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of an organisation with a clearly Liberal bias supporting the speech of predominantly bigots and racists on the far right, and doing so under the cover of advocating "academic freedom of speech".

How on earth is the professor in the linked article a bigot?

Elaedith 21st October 2021 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13635554)
How on earth is the professor in the linked article a bigot?

He weighs the same as a duck.

Graham2001 21st October 2021 03:20 PM

The New York Times on the Dorian Abbot affair at NYT...


Quote:

CHICAGO — The Massachusetts Institute of Technology invited the geophysicist Dorian Abbot to give a prestigious public lecture this autumn. He seemed a natural choice, a scientific star who studies climate change and whether planets in distant solar systems might harbor atmospheres conducive to life.


Then a swell of angry resistance arose. Some faculty members and graduate students argued that Dr. Abbot, a professor at the University of Chicago, had created harm by speaking out against aspects of affirmative action and diversity programs. In videos and opinion pieces, Dr. Abbot, who is white, has asserted that such programs treat “people as members of a group rather than as individuals, repeating the mistake that made possible the atrocities of the 20th century.” He said that he favored a diverse pool of applicants selected on merit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/u...abbot-mit.html


Jerry Coyne (Who is quoted in the NYT article.) also published a comentary on his blog.


Quote:

The saga of Dorian Abbot began quietly on my campus, and when it was resolved at the University of Chicago, I thought that was the end of it. But then, because Abbot had written and made videos criticizing affirmative action and DEI initiatives, he was disinvited from the prestigious Carlson lectures at MIT, where he was supposed to speak on global warming (they later offered him a smaller technical lecture on his work). This deplatforming was picked up by several venues in the conservative media, including the conservative columnist Bret Stephens at the NYT, but I was frustrated that the non-conservative press ignored such an egregious incident of cancellation.

It was especially egregious because Abbot wasn’t going to talk at MIT about DEI or the like, but about global warming and other planets. In other words, he was being punished for saying things in other venues that offended people. More than that: there is a valid debate about the methods of DEI initiatives, though their intent is admirable. I accept the need for some affirmative action as a means of reparation, but others don’t, and none of us should be punished or cancelled for our views.

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/...g-on-its-face/

angrysoba 21st October 2021 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 13635316)
It's not like she is some 65 year old person claiming, "Well it was acceptable when I started doing it back in 1980"

Apparently she has been doing this for almost 10 years. No, it was not considered acceptable back in 2012. Protests against the Braves's and Florida St "tomahawk chop" go back to at least 1994.

Yes, it is a baffling lack of awareness. This is why I would not want her to continue teaching. Anyone so completely clueless on this is not someone I would trust.

I've seen some suggesting that "oh, the principal just needs to have a talk with her," but I don't see it. Does she really need to be told this is inappropriate?

(the sadder ones are those who are actually trying to excuse it because, hey, she's trying to teach a difficult subject. Um, no)

Yeah, I get what you mean. I did say that the principal should have a word with her, but given the second video and the knowledge that she’s been doing this for some time I would think it requires a bit more than a word. I tend to be optimistic about the idea that people can be better so the school admin should look into this, probably issue a warning and some retraining. I still don’t like to support firings as a first response, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it comes to that.

angrysoba 21st October 2021 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13635464)
Because

1. The petty bickering that goes on in academia is of little interest to me, and

2. I already know that FIRE defends speech I find unacceptable and indefensible, and

3. Any organisation that advocates allowing scumbags like Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, Bill Ayers and Ben "Uncle Tom" Carson a platform to open their vile mouths in front of university students is not an organisation I have any interest in hearing from.

I would no more read a FIRE article than I would read an article on OAN or Newsmax.



True. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of an organisation with a clearly Liberal bias supporting the speech of predominantly bigots and racists on the far right, and doing so under the cover of advocating "academic freedom of speech".

I think the point of having people like Fire is to protect academic freedoms. It means that the person is irrelevant. The principle is important. We shouldn’t just fire people because we don’t like their ideas or their political persuasion.

It’s like the ACLU or Amnesty International. They are not so interested in how big an ******* the person they are defending is, and I fully support organizations who can separate principle from emotions.

Also, someone who unironically used the term “Uncle Tom” would probably get fired.

d4m10n 21st October 2021 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 13635572)
Also, someone who unironically used the term “Uncle Tom” would probably get fired.

It's a slur; it's only directed at black folks.

Draw your own conclusions.

angrysoba 21st October 2021 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13635582)
It's a slur; it's only directed at black folks.

Draw your own conclusions.

I know. It’s racist to use Uncle Tom in the context of a black person acting white or supporting white supremacy etc…

smartcooky 21st October 2021 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13635554)
How on earth is the professor in the linked article a bigot?

If you read and understood the reply to the last post you quoted me in, you would realise that...


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.