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)

Cain 18th November 2021 06:04 PM

Much of the discussion about Chappelle's latest special focuses on his friend's suicide. I think more reviewers should have included spoiler tags. Anyway, Twitter recommended this substack to me, and the author says, contrary to Chappelle's telling, there's no evidence that blowback from defending Chappelle contributed to her suicide.



https://michaelhobbes.substack.com/p...eb&utm_source=

Graham2001 19th November 2021 06:19 AM

Interesting article in the Washington Post, the researcher is a 'Person of Gender' and were looking into people sexually attracted to minors, apparently this is due to their use of the term 'minor-attracted persons' rather than paedophiles...


Quote:

Old Dominion University has put a professor on leave amid controversy over their research into adults who are sexually attracted to minors, saying it had put campus safety at risk.




The public university was facing a firestorm over Professor Allyn Walker’s use of the term “minor-attracted people” and whether that language and approach destigmatizes sex offenders. Students protested on the Norfolk campus Tuesday, outrage spread on social media and an online petition to remove Walker had garnered thousands of signatures within days.





On Tuesday night, university officials announced that Walker had been placed on administrative leave. Reactions to Walker’s book and academic research “have led to concerns for their safety and that of campus,” have disrupted campus and are interfering with teaching and learning, officials wrote in a statement online.




https://www.washingtonpost.com/educa...-allyn-walker/

Darat 19th November 2021 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham2001 (Post 13658976)
Interesting article in the Washington Post, the researcher is a 'Person of Gender' and were looking into people sexually attracted to minors, apparently this is due to their use of the term 'minor-attracted persons' rather than paedophiles...






https://www.washingtonpost.com/educa...-allyn-walker/

I’m am assuming you think this is bad, that they shouldn’t have been “cancelled”?

lionking 19th November 2021 02:03 PM

An article mainly of the cancelling of stage and TV shows in Australia and the devastating effect it has had on those cancelled.


https://www.theage.com.au/national/t...27-p593ls.html


The first part is about a bi actor.

Quote:

Hugh Sheridan was confirmed in the lead role for the musical, Hedwig and the Angry Inch, scheduled for the 2021 Sydney Festival.
Quote:

Hedwig is born Hansel, a boy from communist East Germany who falls in love with an American soldier and has a sex-change operation so they can marry and flee to the US. But the surgery is botched and later the soldier leaves, pitching Hedwig into a life of sorrow, crazy bravery, fabulous wigs and rock ‘n’ roll.
Quote:

One day in November, just weeks into rehearsals for Hedwig, Sheridan opened his Instagram account to read some “horrific messages”. Four trans advocates had organised an open letter demanding he be dropped from the role. The letter, signed by more than 1700 people, said only a trans actor could play the role.
Quote:

The letter prompted the American creators of Hedwig, John Cameron Mitchell and Stephen Trask, to issue a statement saying they did not believe that Hedwig was trans, and that anyone could play the role. But the Australian producers, Showtune Productions, cancelled the show. “We wish to assure the Trans and LGBTQIA+ community that the issues raised are respected and taken very seriously,” said Showtune in a statement.
Disgusting.

There are other stories about the gay nightclub which commemorated the death of four cops, one of whom was gay and frequented the club.

Quote:

Dozens of posts by LGBTQI+ activists targeted the nightclub on Facebook: its act was “abhorrent” and “vomit”, they said. “Why not stand in the fight to stop black deaths in custody instead of supporting oppressors? The queer community will never stand with cops.” And: “White gay men proving, yet again, that they will always be white men before they are anything else.”
Okay, the club was not cancelled but the intent was there.

What has happened to the old Australian tradition of giving people a “fair go” to live their lives and express opinions?

ponderingturtle 22nd November 2021 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham2001 (Post 13658976)
Interesting article in the Washington Post, the researcher is a 'Person of Gender' and were looking into people sexually attracted to minors, apparently this is due to their use of the term 'minor-attracted persons' rather than paedophiles...






https://www.washingtonpost.com/educa...-allyn-walker/

Wow there is all kinds of room in that to be reasonable, I know anyone attracted to someone under the age of 18 should be locked up for all eternity regardless of if they act on that attraction or not.

For example were the people being studdied sex offenders or people who have an unwanted attraction to minors? And of course being a place were definitions matter was it limited to pedophiles or were those attracted to people going through puberty included as well.

Kind of like how in lots of studies it has changed from calling people gay men, to men who have sex with men. It gets rid of the identity and focuses on the behavior.

tyr_13 22nd November 2021 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 13661548)
Wow there is all kinds of room in that to be reasonable, I know anyone attracted to someone under the age of 18 should be locked up for all eternity regardless of if they act on that attraction or not.

For example were the people being studdied sex offenders or people who have an unwanted attraction to minors? And of course being a place were definitions matter was it limited to pedophiles or were those attracted to people going through puberty included as well.

Kind of like how in lots of studies it has changed from calling people gay men, to men who have sex with men. It gets rid of the identity and focuses on the behavior.

It's also about accuracy. They were not seeking to study only pedophiles, so that's not the right term to use even in the more common (and I'd say at this point overly expansive to the point of causing actual harm to the cause people expanded it to support) definition. This is like the people complaining about 'people who menstruate' when that was the best phrase for the exact thing they were talking about.

Besides all that, a large number of people who sexually assault minors are not attracted to minors in the same way that a large number of people who are attracted to minors don't assault them. I mean, damn, wait till they hear about 'gay for pay'.

SuburbanTurkey 27th November 2021 09:53 AM

Dave Chappelle has reached the "publicly arguing with high schoolers" stage of being an old, out of touch weirdo

Quote:

Andrew added that at the end of the evening, Chappelle proceeded to tell the students: "I am better at what I do than all of you in this room combined."

He added: "It was just a grotesque display of ego and narcissism."

Andrew later said that throughout the event, Chappelle — who appeared onstage with film cameras for a documentary — was reluctant to engage with the concerns of the students but continually told the audience that they "can't silence" him.

"He kept on saying, 'You can't silence me. How dare you try to silence me.' Not one person in that room was trying to silence him at all," Andrew said.
https://www.insider.com/dave-chappel...erview-2021-11

tyr_13 27th November 2021 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13665720)
Dave Chappelle has reached the "publicly arguing with high schoolers" stage of being an old, out of touch weirdo



https://www.insider.com/dave-chappel...erview-2021-11

'Don't silence me' he said with a microphone from a stage at a required assembly.

dirtywick 27th November 2021 07:56 PM

you know, if it wasn't for people like Dave Chapelle who have the courage to stand there and force a bunch transgendered teens to listen to him berate them about how much better he is than they are, who knows where we would be as a society

SuburbanTurkey 29th November 2021 05:05 AM

What I constantly keep wondering to myself is how much of this whole "cancel culture" freakout is just the side effects of the people panicking as they age and increasingly find themselves being "uncool" in the eyes of some younger generations. Comedians who spent their younger years being edgy and in touch with the cultural moment often seem to react pretty negatively as life moves on. The "hip comedian" to "old man yelling at cloud" pipeline never fails to deliver.

The fact that a huge age cohort, the baby boomers, is currently entering their elderly years and see their cultural dominance waning is probably at the root of a lot of this.

There's really no reason why people must age this gracelessly, and obviously the most deranged voices are the loudest.

Darat 29th November 2021 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13667085)
What I constantly keep wondering to myself is how much of this whole "cancel culture" freakout is just the side effects of the people panicking as they age and increasingly find themselves being "uncool" in the eyes of some younger generations. Comedians who spent their younger years being edgy and in touch with the cultural moment often seem to react pretty negatively as life moves on. The "hip comedian" to "old man yelling at cloud" pipeline never fails to deliver.

The fact that a huge age cohort, the baby boomers, is currently entering their elderly years and see their cultural dominance waning is probably at the root of a lot of this.

There's really no reason why people must age this gracelessly, and obviously the most deranged voices are the loudest.

It should be know as the law of Get Off My Lawn.

d4m10n 29th November 2021 05:28 PM

Quote:

“We should be concerned whenever protected expression—and Professor Walker’s speech falls well within the protection of the First Amendment and academic freedom—is met with threats of violence, regardless of viewpoint. And we should be alarmed when universities take action against faculty members in response to alleged threats or protest targeting the speaker.”
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...dophilia-leave

Cain 29th November 2021 11:20 PM

Hilarious article from the Idaho Statesman picked up nationally. It regards a troglodyte political science professor's comments about women...

Quote:

“Our culture is steeped with feminism,” Yenor said during the conference. “It teaches young boys and girls that they are motivated by much the same things and want much the same things.”

“Thus girls are told to become as independent as boys are said to be. ... [sic] They are more medicated, meddlesome and quarrelsome than women need to be.”

[...]

He also said the country needs to “de-emphasize” its colleges and universities, and called universities “indoctrination camps” and “the citadels of our gynecocracy.”

[...]

“Every effort must be made not to recruit women into engineering, but rather to recruit and demand more of men who become engineers. Ditto for med school, and the law, and every trade.”
The university is standing by their man (good), but I immediately thought of Title IX vulnerability, and indeed a quarrelsome clam raises the possibility that someone may file such a complaint. All in all, I thought he made some good points, but ya can't say "gynecocracy" without saying "cock."

angrysoba 29th November 2021 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain (Post 13667891)
Hilarious article from the Idaho Statesman picked up nationally. It regards a troglodyte political science professor's comments about women...



The university is standing by their man (good), but I immediately thought of Title IX vulnerability, and indeed a quarrelsome clam raises the possibility that someone may file such a complaint. All in all, I thought he made some good points, but ya can't say "gynecocracy" without saying "cock."

Bari Weiss will probably be offering him a job teaching engineering at the University of Austin soon enough.

Emily's Cat 30th November 2021 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13667744)

This is one of those cases that really pushes me right up to the limit of my principles. I have to admit being conflicted between supporting freedom of speech and academic freedom and... well... opposing advocacy for pedophilia.

d4m10n 30th November 2021 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13668324)
I have to admit being conflicted between supporting freedom of speech and academic freedom and... well... opposing advocacy for pedophilia.

I would feel much the same, had the prof in question advocated for destigmatizing sexual abuse of children.

Emily's Cat 30th November 2021 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13668358)
I would feel much the same, had the prof in question advocated for destigmatizing sexual abuse of children.

The fine line in there is probably best suited to a different thread, it's going to spread far beyond "Cancel Culture". I mean, I don't have any moral or philosophical problem with people watching violent porn... but the destigmatization of that violent porn has led to an increase in acts of violence during sex with real people, including multiple choking deaths by people engaging in "breath play" compliments of the porn they've been watching. I think there are cases where "destigmatizing" something that has fairly obvious downside risks is perhaps not a good idea. And I think that "destigmatizing" sexual attraction to children as a concept is likely to result in an increase in actual sexual abuse of children.

At the end of the day, I support free speech, even when I strongly disagree with it. In this case, I support the right of that person to hold those views... and the right of other people to argue against them. I don't think that them having those views is sufficient in and of itself to be grounds for dismissal. But in this case, I believe it also became a component of the curriculum... and I do think that the university could reasonably dismiss a teacher for advocating for pedophilia to be destigmatized in their classes.

I view it similar to racism. People should be allowed to hold racist views, and to express them privately. The fact that an employee holds a racist view shouldn't be grounds all by itself for dismissal. But... the instant that person expresses a racist view while actively on the job, or in a way that implies their view is shared by their employer... that's a different matter altogether.

Lithrael 1st December 2021 07:02 AM

It’s not that kind of destigmatizing (as in all the way around to ‘hey there’s nothing wrong with that’) it’s the disease kind (as in ‘hey that’s a condition society shouldn’t be so judgemental of that you can never speak up to say you need help dealing with it’).

Think of the various eras of ‘can’t let anyone find out you have a scary STD’ type of context as far as individual and societal harm there. It’s not that people are trying to normalize having or spreading STD’s. Just destigmatize enough that you’re not afraid you’re ruined if anyone finds out you’ve got it, so you can safely seek treatment.

ETA: As close as it gets to ‘it’s ok’ is the same sort of thing as telling someone with say a compulsive gambling problem that they aren’t, personally, a hopeless disgusting finance-destroying monster because their brain is stuck on ‘bet again!!’ though they do need help in making sure they don’t have access to the family savings account.

Emily's Cat 1st December 2021 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lithrael (Post 13668907)
It’s not that kind of destigmatizing (as in all the way around to ‘hey there’s nothing wrong with that’) it’s the disease kind (as in ‘hey that’s a condition society shouldn’t be so judgemental of that you can never speak up to say you need help dealing with it’).

Think of the various eras of ‘can’t let anyone find out you have a scary STD’ type of context as far as individual and societal harm there. It’s not that people are trying to normalize having or spreading STD’s. Just destigmatize enough that you’re not afraid you’re ruined if anyone finds out you’ve got it, so you can safely seek treatment.

ETA: As close as it gets to ‘it’s ok’ is the same sort of thing as telling someone with say a compulsive gambling problem that they aren’t, personally, a hopeless disgusting finance-destroying monster because their brain is stuck on ‘bet again!!’ though they do need help in making sure they don’t have access to the family savings account.

Well, I think there's a rather obvious difference here that gets glossed over. The "Destigmatize Pedophilia" groups, such as Prostasia, advocate for the availability of child sex dolls and animated or digital imagery of child pornography as "treatment" to divert the attraction to children away from actual kids. Jumping on your compulsive gambling analogy, that would be like advocating that people with a gambling problem should have access to online gambling games that don't use real money in order to mitigate their problem.

d4m10n 1st December 2021 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13669014)
Jumping on your compulsive gambling analogy, that would be like advocating that people with a gambling problem should have access to online gambling games that don't use real money in order to mitigate their problem.

Why wouldn't that be a good move, assuming that the online games could be funded with adverts instead of user fees?

Emily's Cat 1st December 2021 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13669252)
Why wouldn't that be a good move, assuming that the online games could be funded with adverts instead of user fees?

You're reinforcing and indulging the compulsive behavior, rather than mitigating and controlling it. You're encouraging the person to continue engaging in the behavior that is the problem, just masking them from the harm.

Kind of like having a kid with serious anger problems who keeps beating up their younger sibling... so you give both of them pads and soft gloves so the older one can continue to beat their sibling, but just don't do any damage. It doesn't address the behavior though.

dirtywick 1st December 2021 04:49 PM

If there’s no effective way to alter the behavior then giving them a way to mitigate the damage the behavior causes seems rational, as distasteful as that may be at times.

d4m10n 1st December 2021 05:03 PM

"I'm with dirtywick," they said aloud for the first time.

Emily's Cat 1st December 2021 05:08 PM

There are ways to alter the behavior, which is what psychological treatment for paraphilias already does. The most common ones are cognitive behavioral therapy and antiandrogens. There are other, less common methods to alter behavior... but none of them involve indulging the behavior that is the core problem.

d4m10n 1st December 2021 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13669473)
There are other, less common methods to alter behavior... but none of them involve indulging the behavior that is the core problem.

I feel like you may be conflating behaviours which are done in private with behaviours which involve and harm other people.

That said, which specific behaviours did the prof in question encourage which merit cancellation?

dirtywick 1st December 2021 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13669470)
"I'm with dirtywick," they said aloud for the first time.

my mom thinks I’m cool

digger 1st December 2021 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13669473)
There are ways to alter the behavior, which is what psychological treatment for paraphilias already does. The most common ones are cognitive behavioral therapy and antiandrogens. There are other, less common methods to alter behavior... but none of them involve indulging the behavior that is the core problem.

You suggest chemical castration as the reasonable, humane alternative.

Lithrael 2nd December 2021 08:38 AM

Hey if it was good enough for Alan Turing…

Emily's Cat 2nd December 2021 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13669476)
I feel like you may be conflating behaviours which are done in private with behaviours which involve and harm other people.

That said, which specific behaviours did the prof in question encourage which merit cancellation?

IIRC, their position advocates for the use of child-surrogates for sexual satiation among people with pedophilia.

Were that position expressed only from a personal perspective, I would object to their removal (with distaste), but they presented this as I understand it as classroom material in their curriculum. At which point, I think it's reasonable for the school to decide that this is not an advocacy position they wish to be part of their educational curricula.

Emily's Cat 2nd December 2021 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by digger (Post 13669541)
You suggest chemical castration as the reasonable, humane alternative.

No, I did not. Anti-androgens are frequently used with a wide variety of paraphilias to reduce the sexual urge, not to completely eliminate it. The objective is to reduce the urge to a manageable level, where the individual is able to override their desires and behave in a non-harmful (to them or others) fashion.

I would only support chemical castration for convicted sex offenders who are likely to re-offend.

digger 3rd December 2021 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13670103)
No, I did not. Anti-androgens are frequently used with a wide variety of paraphilias to reduce the sexual urge, not to completely eliminate it. The objective is to reduce the urge to a manageable level, where the individual is able to override their desires and behave in a non-harmful (to them or others) fashion.

I would only support chemical castration for convicted sex offenders who are likely to re-offend.

\

So just to be clear, the mandatory antiandrogen treatments are only for people who have committed no crimes. Would you happen to know the suicide rate for people receiving this treatment?

Does this work any better, or cause any less harm, than gay conversion therapy?

Dr. Keith 3rd December 2021 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13669014)
Well, I think there's a rather obvious difference here that gets glossed over. The "Destigmatize Pedophilia" groups, such as Prostasia, advocate for the availability of child sex dolls and animated or digital imagery of child pornography as "treatment" to divert the attraction to children away from actual kids. Jumping on your compulsive gambling analogy, that would be like advocating that people with a gambling problem should have access to online gambling games that don't use real money in order to mitigate their problem.

I understand you anger at those groups but my limited reading indicates that this professor is not doing the same sort of advocacy.

I’m happy to be shown to be wrong about that.

And man, what a crap field to find yourself involved in. I get wanting to help people with the problems they have and not all problems are pretty. But proctologist is looking like a better option at this point.

Emily's Cat 3rd December 2021 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by digger (Post 13670583)
\

So just to be clear, the mandatory antiandrogen treatments are only for people who have committed no crimes. Would you happen to know the suicide rate for people receiving this treatment?

Does this work any better, or cause any less harm, than gay conversion therapy?

Did you actually read what I wrote? I don't think you did.

Graham2001 7th December 2021 05:05 PM

Something from the Canadian 'National Post' newspaper, the author is Lawence Krauss, covering a controversy in Germany when someone wrote a paper criticising the idea of racial quotas as a means to ensure 'equity'.


The key point being a policy Krauss quotes and I will reproduce the quote as he gives it, with the same emphasis.


Quote:

“Following the publication of the article by (Tomáš Hudlický) in (German journal) Angewandte Chemie and the identification of a potentially offensive image in a journal, a set of guidelines has been produced by RSC staff to help us minimise the risk of publishing inappropriate or otherwise offensive content. Offence is a subjective matter and sensitivity to it spans a considerable range; however, we bear in mind that it is the perception of the recipient that we should consider, regardless of the author’s intention . … Please consider whether or not any content (words, depictions or imagery) might have the potential to cause offence, referring to the guidelines as needed. ” (italics mine)

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/law...ence-offensive

Puppycow 12th December 2021 04:50 AM

Fordham U. prof fired after mixing up two black students in class

My mother mixes up her own children. I've done similar things myself, mixing up people's names. I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with race. There may be something else going on, but the University refuses to say what that might be:

Quote:

Fordham spokesman Bob Howe told The Post the school “takes personnel matters very seriously,” but claimed “media representations regarding this issue do not reflect the facts in Dr. Trogan’s case.” He refused to elaborate.

SuburbanTurkey 12th December 2021 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 13677607)
Fordham U. prof fired after mixing up two black students in class

My mother mixes up her own children. I've done similar things myself, mixing up people's names. I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with race. There may be something else going on, but the University refuses to say what that might be:

I dunno, seems like this might be the reason:

Quote:

Hours after what he called an “innocent mistake,” lecturer Christopher Trogan, 46, sent a rambling, nine-page email to students in his Composition II classes explaining the faux pas — and defending, without being asked, his “entire life” of working on “issues of justice, equality, and inclusion,” the campus newspaper reported.

...

Several students said Trogan’s bizarre overreaction, rather than making a simple apology, made matters worse for him.
https://nypost.com/2021/12/11/fordha...ents-in-class/

angrysoba 12th December 2021 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 13677607)
Fordham U. prof fired after mixing up two black students in class

My mother mixes up her own children. I've done similar things myself, mixing up people's names. I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with race. There may be something else going on, but the University refuses to say what that might be:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13677617)
I dunno, seems like this might be the reason:



https://nypost.com/2021/12/11/fordha...ents-in-class/

It sounds like a massive over-reaction to fire someone for mixing up students regardless of the message he wrote afterwards, which sounds unnecessary anyway.

lionking 12th December 2021 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham2001 (Post 13674378)
Something from the Canadian 'National Post' newspaper, the author is Lawence Krauss, covering a controversy in Germany when someone wrote a paper criticising the idea of racial quotas as a means to ensure 'equity'.


The key point being a policy Krauss quotes and I will reproduce the quote as he gives it, with the same emphasis.





https://nationalpost.com/opinion/law...ence-offensive

Stop the world. I want to get off.


Quote:

University in Alberta, linda manyguns, eschews the use of capital letters, except when it comes to Indigenous people, because capitalization is a hurtful symbol of western hierarchy
.

I now understand how my wise, thoughtful and intelligent mother-in-law felt when she said years ago “I’m glad I’m not living for much longer”.

This crap is sickening.

SuburbanTurkey 12th December 2021 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 13677625)
It sounds like a massive over-reaction to fire someone for mixing up students regardless of the message he wrote afterwards, which sounds unnecessary anyway.

Is there any evidence this is why he was fired?

Reading between the lines here it kinda seems like this guy was having a mental break of some kind, making mountains out of molehills with his deranged behavior.

dirtywick 12th December 2021 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 13677625)
It sounds like a massive over-reaction to fire someone for mixing up students regardless of the message he wrote afterwards, which sounds unnecessary anyway.

I agree you shouldn’t be fired for mixing up two students. But if the apology is long and crazy enough it could be fireable. And if it was, and it’s being framed as being fired for mixing up the students when it’s in fact for unprompted erratic behavior after the fact, well I might just consider that dishonest. And as nebulous as cancel culture is, this thread is basically become about people losing their jobs for various reasons unrelated to cancel culture in any meaningful way. This is one of those cases.

Stout 12th December 2021 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13677638)
Is there any evidence this is why he was fired?

Reading between the lines here it kinda seems like this guy was having a mental break of some kind, making mountains out of molehills with his deranged behavior.

Here's the problem.

Quote:

Sims said the section of the email that listed his credentials and “everything he has done for minorities” gave her the impression of a white savior complex. The other first-year student interviewed by The Observer agreed with this assessment.
And

Quote:

A faculty member at Fordham who has had interactions with Trogan on more than one occasion described him as a person who is “very good at stirring up energy around him but not very mindful of the consequences, for himself or others.” The faculty member, who asked for anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the topic, added that Trogan is “reactive, not reflective.”


Source

Christopher Trogan slapped down his social justice creds instead of kowtowing while he was gettin' told.

angrysoba 12th December 2021 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13677636)
Stop the world. I want to get off.


.

I now understand how my wise, thoughtful and intelligent mother-in-law felt when she said years ago “I’m glad I’m not living for much longer”.

This crap is sickening.

I don’t know about that. How long ago did your mother-in-law say this? Personally I refuse to agree to the whole “the world has gone crazy!” narrative given that you will probably find people of every generation saying the same thing. I expect the elderly said exactly the same thing about the Sixties and how young men were growing their hair long, refusing to join the army to fight for their country against the Commie gooks and in fact seem to be Commies themselves ungrateful little ***** who didn’t recognize the sacrifices of their fathers and grandfathers and who blast their eardrums with Satanic noise….etc….

Of course we understand much of that as being a moral panic, etc….

Besides, who can read a name like “linda manyguns” and keep a straight face?

angrysoba 12th December 2021 01:14 PM

That said….

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13677669)
I agree you shouldn’t be fired for mixing up two students. But if the apology is long and crazy enough it could be fireable. And if it was, and it’s being framed as being fired for mixing up the students when it’s in fact for unprompted erratic behavior after the fact, well I might just consider that dishonest. And as nebulous as cancel culture is, this thread is basically become about people losing their jobs for various reasons unrelated to cancel culture in any meaningful way. This is one of those cases.

Come on now, if the facts are presented accurately, a big if with the NY Post I’ll concede, or even if we assume that the apology was long and crazy-sounding, and perhaps even more so if the professor is having some kind of mental health issues then it seems to me to be a deeply insensitive move to fire someone for this situation. I could understand putting someone on leave if it turns out that they are having mental health issues. I get it. This is America and people can be pretty much fired at will without any pretext. Somehow that doesn’t make things better. In fact I would think that this is exactly what should get cancel culture people more active about advocating for unions with teeth. Of course much of the time the cancel culture narrative comes from the right who are not genuinely interested in people keeping their jobs, only protecting reactionary views (or views mistaken for being reactionary).

angrysoba 12th December 2021 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stout (Post 13677701)
Here's the problem.



And



Source

Christopher Trogan slapped down his social justice creds instead of kowtowing while he was gettin' told.

I guess everyone’s narrative is confirmed by this incident. As I said in my previous post:

Quote:

Prior to unionization and our first contract, contingent faculty (adjuncts and lecturers) were always considered in an ‘at-will’ relationship to the University and could be let go at any time without explanation, presumption of reappointment, or recourse to the grievance process, no matter how long or how many classes they had taught at Fordham,” Foley said.
If lecturers are part of at-will employment, they can be fired for “any reason or no reason at all,” according to Jeffrey Hirsch, a researcher and professor of labor and employment law at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law.
In reference to Trogan’s case, Hirsch told The Observer that having at-will status versus being covered by a union’s just cause protections can make a big difference.

Stout 12th December 2021 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 13677864)
That said….



Come on now, if the facts are presented accurately, a big if with the NY Post......

They're not, even the Daily Mail has better reporting.

First there was the name mix up and on that same day the professor sent out the white savior email in response to students email(s) suggesting he made the mistake because the students were black. Students who may, or may not have been wearing masks.

About a month passed, professor was fired, supposedly over the content in the white savior email.

After the professor was made unemployed, then he sent out the 9 page email

Then the university told him to stay away.

angrysoba 12th December 2021 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stout (Post 13677888)
They're not, even the Daily Mail has better reporting.

First there was the name mix up and on that same day the professor sent out the white savior email in response to students email(s) suggesting he made the mistake because the students were black. Students who may, or may not have been wearing masks.

About a month passed, professor was fired, supposedly over the content in the white savior email.

After the professor was made unemployed, then he sent out the 9 page email

Then the university told him to stay away.

Yeah. I was also wondering if it could have something to do with masks as well. Students are likely to be wearing masks in universities which definitely would make it more difficult to identify them.

Anyway, we can’t know for sure what this is about because the university apparently doesn’t have to give a reason given the employment law for his position. It is a pretty terrible way to lose a job unless there is something we haven’t heard about.

Cain 12th December 2021 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 13677859)
Besides, who can read a name like “linda manyguns” and keep a straight face?

typical patriarchal behavior, what with mocking a strong, proud, Indigenous wom*n.

dirtywick 12th December 2021 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 13677864)
That said….



Come on now, if the facts are presented accurately, a big if with the NY Post I’ll concede, or even if we assume that the apology was long and crazy-sounding, and perhaps even more so if the professor is having some kind of mental health issues then it seems to me to be a deeply insensitive move to fire someone for this situation. I could understand putting someone on leave if it turns out that they are having mental health issues. I get it. This is America and people can be pretty much fired at will without any pretext. Somehow that doesn’t make things better. In fact I would think that this is exactly what should get cancel culture people more active about advocating for unions with teeth. Of course much of the time the cancel culture narrative comes from the right who are not genuinely interested in people keeping their jobs, only protecting reactionary views (or views mistaken for being reactionary).

Well yeah cancel culture outrage is just a big joke

But I can’t agree with the rest of that. It’s already established that it was framed that he was fired for mixing up names when it was really the catalyst for what appears to be unhinged behavior. Without knowing more about his history at the school or the contents of the letter I’m not willing to concede anything right or wrong was done. Just that we’ve been presented with a narrative that’s untrue. Which is often the case with the stuff that pops up in this thread over and over.

SuburbanTurkey 13th December 2021 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 13677871)
I guess everyone’s narrative is confirmed by this incident. As I said in my previous post:

Well, dude's got a union, the only real antidote to "cancel culture" real or imagined.

I'm willing to make a compromise with right wing reactionaries, I'll pretend "cancel culture" is a real menace if their response is to unionize their workplaces to prevent arbitrary firings.

Darat 13th December 2021 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13678152)
Well yeah cancel culture outrage is just a big joke

But I can’t agree with the rest of that. It’s already established that it was framed that he was fired for mixing up names when it was really the catalyst for what appears to be unhinged behavior. Without knowing more about his history at the school or the contents of the letter I’m not willing to concede anything right or wrong was done. Just that we’ve been presented with a narrative that’s untrue. Which is often the case with the stuff that pops up in this thread over and over.

And for anyone over the age of 35 it is obviously a rehash of "political correctness gone mad", the previous right-wing fearmongering strawman.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.