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=

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”?

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.

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.

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?

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'.

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.

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

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.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...dophilia-leave

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

my mom thinks I’m cool

You suggest chemical castration as the reasonable, humane alternative.

Hey if it was good enough for Alan Turing…

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Here's the problem.

And

Source

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

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?

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).

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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