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)

dirtywick 5th October 2021 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13620947)
He hasn't found a sophistry he doesn't like yet if he thinks it sounds clever.

Not that I find that some kind of thing to cancel him over. Could you imagine? Unless that criticism alone is canelling him.

I think some would consider the criticism alone an attempted cancellation if it suited them

mumblethrax 6th October 2021 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13620947)
Not that I find that some kind of thing to cancel him over. Could you imagine? Unless that criticism alone is canelling him.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by cancellation. I wouldn't mind seeing his star a little dimmed for this--talking cogently about critical thinking is something a science communicator should be able to do. A few less bookings on talk shows, maybe?

He does provide a good illustration of why I think it's weird when people on the left celebrate so many of these cases. When Tyson was accused by a handful of women of sexual impropriety, he got an 'internal investigation' that ultimately cleared him. When Karen there gets accused of being a racist, outside of any work context, she just gets summarily fired. Nobody even considered the fact that this happened in Williamsburg, so there's at least a 20% chance she was being ironically racist.

d4m10n 6th October 2021 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13620936)
I did not rule it out, I just place no weight on it because, as I said previously it was just "pure, idle speculation on your part, and for which you have not a single scrap of evidence in support".

Of course it is speculation, since none of us heard what the woman actually said. Somehow you seem convinced that you know what she actually said, and why she said it, and that your preferred scenario is not speculative.

pgwenthold 6th October 2021 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 13620883)
Wait… are we supposed to be anti-anti-racist now?

I was just reading last night that a school board has admonished a teacher for having a book called "This Book is Anti-Racist" in the classroom.

Yep, the majority of the school board is literally anti-anti-racist.

lobosrul5 6th October 2021 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13620924)

Is twitter down or is it just me?

I get a page with the words "Something went wrong. Try reloading." after clicking both links.

catsmate 6th October 2021 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13620924)

The whackjob who compared diversity to fascism? :rolleyes:

Emily's Cat 6th October 2021 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 13620892)
I think they might argue that “just not being racist” is quietist.

They might, but it's a dumb argument.

"Hey, I'm going to go set that person on fire, they're a witch! Wanna come with?"

"No, I don't really approve of setting people on fire, even if you think they're witches."

"Then you're just as bad and now I'm going to set you on fire too!!!!!!!!"

It's a bit of a Mongol Hoard "Join or Die" approach.

Emily's Cat 6th October 2021 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13620959)
Oh, yeah. That's really worked well for the last 250 years hasn't it?

Ignoring them, won't make them go away. A lack of consequences for being a racist will encourage and embolden them!


Actually, it worked REALLY well since the 60s. It still works well, at least for most people who have a bit of sense about it.

On the other hand, if one defines anyone who doesn't jump on the bandwagon to go intimidate people as being a racist, well, maybe not. But then, that's a matter of redefining words to mean whatever one wants them to mean so one can justify ones authoritarian approach, rather than actual objective reasoning.

lobosrul5 6th October 2021 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13621400)
Actually, it worked REALLY well since the 60s. It still works well, at least for most people who have a bit of sense about it.

On the other hand, if one defines anyone who doesn't jump on the bandwagon to go intimidate people as being a racist, well, maybe not. But then, that's a matter of redefining words to mean whatever one wants them to mean so one can justify ones authoritarian approach, rather than actual objective reasoning.

Wow this reminds me greatly of a conversation I had with my mom. Essentially it became clear to me that she thinks her generation "solved racism" in the 60's. To summarize back then when she participated in student marches it was for "real racism" and these BLM people have never even experienced "real racism" so they just need to go home and stop making such a fuss. As if she is the arbiter of what's bad enough to protest and what isn't.

smartcooky 6th October 2021 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13621154)
Of course it is speculation, since none of us heard what the woman actually said. Somehow you seem convinced that you know what she actually said, and why she said it, and that your preferred scenario is not speculative.

We have confirmation from the witness, on video.

smartcooky 6th October 2021 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13621400)
Actually, it worked REALLY well since the 60s.

If you truly believe this, then you are delusional. The only it has fixed is leglised racism.

There is still plenty of racism out there - as Will Smith rightly said, "...racism isn't getting worse, its getting filmed"

Emily's Cat 6th October 2021 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13621457)
If you truly believe this, then you are delusional. The only it has fixed is leglised racism.

There is still plenty of racism out there - as Will Smith rightly said, "...racism isn't getting worse, its getting filmed"

You're kidding, right? Do you genuinely believe that social interactions with respect to race are just as bad or worse than they were in the 60s? It's not even comparable!

Yes, there is still racism out there. There probably will always be some, at least until we're all a lovely shade of ambiguity brown. But the volume and the magnitude is significantly smaller than it was 60 years ago.

Elaedith 6th October 2021 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13621460)
You're kidding, right? Do you genuinely believe that social interactions with respect to race are just as bad or worse than they were in the 60s? It's not even comparable!

Yes, there is still racism out there. There probably will always be some, at least until we're all a lovely shade of ambiguity brown. But the volume and the magnitude is significantly smaller than it was 60 years ago.

Yes, surveys of social attitudes generally show very substantial reductions in racist attitudes (e.g. whether it is acceptable to discriminate based on race, whether one would mind having Black people as neighbours etc.) over time, with a few blips.

However, there is no reason why we should believe that any theory, idea, practice or policy put forward as 'anti-racist' will further improve anything if the proponents of such ideas attempt to shield their ideas from criticism by inflicting punitive 'consequences' on critics.

d4m10n 6th October 2021 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13621453)
We have confirmation from the witness, on video.

The on-camera part shows up in my hypothetical, word for word. The question remains whether the bystander was confirming a paraphrase or an exact quote.

Once again, here is my hypothetical, but for the sake of clarity I've italicized the (off-camera) hypothetical dialogue:

Canceled woman: Go back to Long Island City and stay there!

Frederick Joseph: Did she not just tell us to stay in our hood?

Random bystander: She did.


In this scenario, the unnamed bystander is confirming that Mr. Joseph has paraphrased the canceled woman's demand substantively correctly.

Why are you confident that this scenario is so unlikely that you feel comfortable in publicly demanding that the young woman in question ought to lose her livelihood and health insurance?

Elaedith 6th October 2021 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13621527)
The on-camera part shows up in my hypothetical, word for word. The question remains whether the bystander was confirming a paraphrase or an exact quote.

Once again, here is my hypothetical, but for the sake of clarity I've italicized the (off-camera) hypothetical dialogue:

Canceled woman: Go back to Long Island City and stay there!

Frederick Joseph: Did she not just tell us to stay in our hood?

Random bystander: She did.


In this scenario, the unnamed bystander is confirming that Mr. Joseph has paraphrased the canceled woman's demand substantively correctly.

Why are you confident that this scenario is so unlikely that you feel comfortable in publicly demanding that the young woman in question ought to lose her livelihood and health insurance?

As I understand it, this was an argument because she thought Joseph was bringing a noisy aggressive dog into the park. She admitted saying something to this effect (I'm not sure of the exact words) and says she was referring to removing the dog to a different area. If she did use those words it was a stupid choice of words, but given Joseph's history as a professional grievance monger I would also suspect he did everything possible to escalate the argument in the hope of getting some good material.

smartcooky 6th October 2021 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13621460)
You're kidding, right? Do you genuinely believe that social interactions with respect to race are just as bad or worse than they were in the 60s?

You go ask the families of the hundreds of unarmed black people gunned down and murdered by white cops in the last 50 years if they think things have gotten much better.

All that is happened is that legislated racism ended* and what once used to be overt racism is now covert racism. Its the same demographic doing the same thing, white males mostly, in the south. The KKK hasn't gone away, its gone underground. They were pretty much the only game in town back then. Now there are more white supremacist organisations with a larger overall following that the KKK ever had....

11th Hour Remnant Messenger
American Renaissance
American Freedom Party
American Nazi Party
Aryan Brotherhood of Texas
Aryan Republican Army was a white nationalist terrorist organization.
Aryan Nations
Asatru Folk
Atomwaffen Division
Council of Conservative Citizens
Creativity Alliance
EURO,
Hammerskin Nation
Identity Evropa
National Alliance
National Association for the Advancement of White People
National Policy Institute
National Vanguard
Nationalist Movement
Occidental Quarterly
The Order, or Brüder Schweigen
Pacifica Forum
Patriot Front
Phineas Priesthood
Pioneer Fund
Vanguard America
Volksfront
White America, Inc
White Aryan Resistance


Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13621460)
Yes, there is still racism out there. There probably will always be some, at least until we're all a lovely shade of ambiguity brown. But the volume and the magnitude is significantly smaller than it was 60 years ago.

Not significantly enough.




* You can make a very good argument that voter suppression laws being enacted in red states is racism because it is clearly aimed at suppressing voting by non-whites),

smartcooky 6th October 2021 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13621527)
The on-camera part shows up in my hypothetical, word for word. The question remains whether the bystander was confirming a paraphrase or an exact quote.

What we have on video is the default, and is confirmed by the witness.

Your fantasy paraphrase was made up by you and based on... nothing but your own desire to minimize. You're looking for any excuse to excuse the racist.

Emily's Cat 6th October 2021 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13621594)
You go ask the families of the hundreds of unarmed black people gunned down and murdered by white cops in the last 50 years if they think things have gotten much better.

As opposed to the tens of thousands of unarmed black people gunned down and murdered by white cops and civilians in the 50 years prior to that?

Do you even know any black people who are older than 30? My dad is 70, his mom is still kicking at 88, as are a dozen aunts and uncles in the 70 to 100 range.

Yes, it has definitely gotten better.

smartcooky 6th October 2021 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elaedith (Post 13621545)
As I understand it, this was an argument because she thought Joseph was bringing a noisy aggressive dog into the park. She admitted saying something to this effect (I'm not sure of the exact words) and says she was referring to removing the dog to a different area. If she did use those words it was a stupid choice of words, but given Joseph's history as a professional grievance monger I would also suspect he did everything possible to escalate the argument in the hope of getting some good material.

This is victim blaming.

There is a really easy way to foil your so-called "grievance mongers"... don't be a ******* racist; don't say racist things... ever. Don't give them the ammunition!

smartcooky 6th October 2021 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13621604)
As opposed to the tens of thousands of unarmed black people gunned down and murdered by white cops and civilians in the 50 years prior to that?

Pure whataboutism!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13621604)
Do you even know any black people who are older than 30? My dad is 70, his mom is still kicking at 88, as are a dozen aunts and uncles in the 70 to 100 range.

Yes, as it happens, quite a few actually.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13621604)
Yes, it has definitely gotten better.

Not by much


I note that you failed to address the rest of the post.

lobosrul5 6th October 2021 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13621605)
This is victim blaming.

There is a really easy way to foil your so-called "grievance mongers"... don't be a ******* racist; don't say racist things... ever. Don't give them the ammunition!

Serious question here, but even if everything he says is true is he really a victim? Its not a crime, or even a civil rights violation, in the United States to say something racist. Is having a racist slur levied at you any worse than just something mean and nasty?

Elaedith 6th October 2021 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13621605)
This is victim blaming.

There is a really easy way to foil your so-called "grievance mongers"... don't be a ******* racist; don't say racist things... ever. Don't give them the ammunition!

Unless you have evidence she wouldn't have said the same thing to a white guy under the same circumstances, you have zero evidence she is racist.

Her response was stupid and inappropriate but there is no evidence Joseph is more a 'victim' than she is.

d4m10n 6th October 2021 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13621603)
What we have on video is the default, and is confirmed by the witness.

You've no idea what the witness is confirming, and you've given us no good reason to believe they are confirming an exact quote rather than a paraphrase.

Sorry, but you've got to come to grips with the fact that your scenario (the one in which the canceled woman actually says "go back to your hood") is just another hypothetical.

Maybe your hypothetical is more likely than mine, but I remain (as ever) skeptical.
Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13621603)
You're looking for any excuse to excuse the racist.

You are so confident in your conclusions, despite an abundance of alternate possibilities which haven't yet been ruled out. :(

smartcooky 6th October 2021 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13621625)
You've no idea what the witness is confirming

Yes I do.

Frederick Joseph: Did she not just tell us to stay in our hood?

Bystander: She did.


This is the default, the null. No matter how you try to spin your apologism for the racist, this remains the default until PROVED OTHERWISE.

The only thing you have offered so far is some crap you made up, with no basis in fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13621625)
Sorry, but you've got to come to grips with the fact that your scenario (the one in which the canceled woman actually says "go back to your hood") is just another hypothetical.

Nope. It is stated by the victim, and confirmed by the bystander.

Sorry, but you've got to come to grips with the fact what is claimed to have happened, actually happened and you just made stuff up to excuse the racist

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13621625)
Maybe your hypothetical is facts are more likely than mine the stuff I made up, but I remain (as ever) skeptical.You are so confident in your conclusions, despite an abundance of alternate possibilities which haven't yet been ruled out. :(

Again, I have not ruled out anything. I have assessed what is more likely

a. what we see happened, and what was claimed to have happened, or

b. what you made up, without evidence, from whole cloth.

Option a. is clearly more likely!

smartcooky 6th October 2021 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elaedith (Post 13621621)
Unless you have evidence she wouldn't have said the same thing to a white guy under the same circumstances, you have zero evidence she is racist.

Say racist things, suffer racist consequences - in this case she lost her job.... and its exactly what she deserved.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Elaedith (Post 13621621)
Her response was stupid and inappropriate but there is no evidence Joseph is more a 'victim' than she is.

Her response was racist, any way you slice it!

When you direct something racist to another person, that other person is a victim of racism

d4m10n 6th October 2021 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13621659)
This is the default, the null.

Nope. You are simply asserting that people are more likely to exactly and perfectly quote their interlocutors than they are to paraphrase their own impression of an interlocutor's intended meaning, while interacting in real time without the benefit of transcripts. You've done nothing to show that this is actually the case IRL, and I'm guessing you've yet to even skim Loftus on eyewitness reliability.

ahhell 6th October 2021 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13621594)
You go ask the families of the hundreds of unarmed black people gunned down and murdered by white cops in the last 50 years if they think things have gotten much better.

All that is happened is that legislated racism ended* and what once used to be overt racism is now covert racism. Its the same demographic doing the same thing, white males mostly, in the south. The KKK hasn't gone away, its gone underground. They were pretty much the only game in town back then. Now there are more white supremacist organisations with a larger overall following that the KKK ever had....

11th
Hour Remnant Messenger
American Renaissance
American Freedom Party
American Nazi Party
Aryan Brotherhood of Texas
Aryan Republican Army was a white nationalist terrorist organization.
Aryan Nations
Asatru Folk
Atomwaffen Division
Council of Conservative Citizens
Creativity Alliance
EURO,
Hammerskin Nation
Identity Evropa
National Alliance
National Association for the Advancement of White People
National Policy Institute
National Vanguard
Nationalist Movement
Occidental Quarterly
The Order, or Brüder Schweigen
Pacifica Forum
Patriot Front
Phineas Priesthood
Pioneer Fund
Vanguard America
Volksfront
White America, Inc
White Aryan Resistance




Not significantly enough.




* You can make a very good argument that voter suppression laws being enacted in red states is racism because it is clearly aimed at suppressing voting by non-whites),

While there are a bunch more such organizations, I'd love to see some evidence that they have even remotely close to same number of members as the Klan once did.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...d-klan/509468/
There was a time when the Klan had rallies of 10s of thousands of members. Charlottesville had about 500 racists from all over the country. At its peak in the 20s, the Klan had between 3 and 6 million members.

The SPLC likes to make a big deal out of the growth in the number of such groups but most of them are the result of splits in previous groups. It would be like concluding that that there are more communists in the US circa 1990 than in 1940 on account of the proliferation of various communist parties in the US. Pretty much everytime there was a split among the soviet block and/or Chinese communist block there was a split in the associated US parties.

Honestly, its ******* absurd to claim the US hasn't gotten less racist or cops haven't gotten less racists than at anytime in the past. The reality that there is a social taboo against openly being racist is evidence we have gotten better. Seriously, the Dixiecrats were a thing. A guy had a legit run at the presidency on a platform that was explicitly racist, no dog whistles, just racist.

smartcooky 6th October 2021 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13621669)
Nope. You are simply asserting observing that people are more likely to quote their interlocutors than they are to paraphrase their own impression of an interlocutor's intended meaning

FTFY

It is far more likely that the witness is agreeing with what was said than with some fantasy version you made up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13621669)
You've done nothing to show that this is actually the case IRL

Nope, that is not how it works. I don't need to show anything. We already know what happened!

The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13621669)
and I'm guessing you've yet to even skim Loftus on eyewitness reliability.

I am already familiar with Loftus... I have even quoted her in a number of trial threads on this and other forums. But it does not apply here. She is talking about recall in testimony of things the witness saw or heard in the past or at some earlier time. What he have here is a witness immediately responding to what they heard, and that response is recorded on the ******* video!!!!

d4m10n 6th October 2021 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13621686)
It is far more likely that the witness is agreeing with what was said than with some fantasy version you made up.

Assertion noted.

The witness may be agreeing with a paraphrase or agreeing with an exact quote; you’ve given us no reason to prefer one scenario over the other so far.
Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13621686)
What he have here is a witness immediately responding to what they heard, and that response is recorded on the ******* video!!!!

The test subjects who claimed there was no gorilla on the basketball court were immediately responding to what they'd just seen on video.

angrysoba 6th October 2021 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13621398)
They might, but it's a dumb argument.

"Hey, I'm going to go set that person on fire, they're a witch! Wanna come with?"

"No, I don't really approve of setting people on fire, even if you think they're witches."

"Then you're just as bad and now I'm going to set you on fire too!!!!!!!!"

It's a bit of a Mongol Hoard "Join or Die" approach.

Right...not sure how your analogy works here, but as we are in that territory, let's tweak the scenario to help you understand the point.

"Hey, I'm going to go set that person on fire, they're a witchblack! Wanna come with?"

"No, I don't really approve of setting black people on fire, even if you think they're witchesbecause I am not racist."

"Then you're just as bad and now I'm going to set you on fire too!!!!!!!!"Ooh, no biggie. I just thought I would ask out of politeness. Hey, it's so cool that we can agree to disagree in a civilized manner, not like ol' Mr. Anti-racist over there with his dramatic over-reactions to things and his loud denunciations of racism, and calling up my boss, etc...

No argument from me there. He's quite annoying, isn't he.

smartcooky 6th October 2021 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahhell (Post 13621675)
While there are a bunch more such organizations, I'd love to see some evidence that they have even remotely close to same number of members as the Klan once did.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...d-klan/509468/
here was a time when the Klan had rallies of 10s of thousands of members. Charlottesville had about 500 racists from all over the country. At its peak in the 20s, the Klan had between 3 and 6 million members.

Yeah, but err, no. The debate here is "since the 1960's"

The Klan at its peak you are talking about is in the 1920s. The so called "Third Klan" at around the time of MLK only had about 14,000 members, and it declined to about 2000 to 3500 by 1970
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klu...tional_changes

It also had a resurgence up to a peak of about 10,000 in the early 1990s, but is now back to about 3,000 - the same as what it was at the end of the 1960s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahhell (Post 13621675)
The SPLC likes to make a big deal out of the growth in the number of such groups but most of them are the result of splits in previous groups.

WARNING: This link is a to 976Kb PDF
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/fi...ec2011-508.pdf


Quote:

Originally Posted by ahhell (Post 13621675)
Honestly, its ******* absurd to claim the US hasn't gotten less racist or cops haven't gotten less racists than at anytime in the past. The reality that there is a social taboo against openly being racist is evidence we have gotten better. Seriously, the Dixiecrats were a thing. A guy had a legit run at the presidency on a platform that was explicitly racist, no dog whistles, just racist.

While US Society has improved, actual racism has not gone away, its gone underground, it has become systemic and it still widespread

Interact map - enjoy !
https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

smartcooky 6th October 2021 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13621698)
The witness may be agreeing with a paraphrase or agreeing with an exact quote; you’ve given us no reason to prefer one scenario over the other so far.The test subjects who claimed there was no gorilla on the basketball court were immediately responding to what they'd just seen on video.

False comparison. The basketball test...

1. is a visual observation test, NOT an aural response test

2. the testee is intentionally misdirected by being told to count the number of passes made by players wearing white.

3. is a test to see what the observer will MISS seeing, not what the observer WILL see or hear.

When that test was first shown to me, I replied with the correct number of passes by the players in white as well as the fact that someone in a gorilla suit walked through the group.

I'm that ******* annoying bastard who handed the 20 question test in after less than a minute because I followed the instructions that said "read all the questions before starting" and found question 20, which said "do not answer any questions, just write your name at the top and hand the paper in". I'm that pedant who reads the all instructions for a new piece of equipment or software before I try to use it. :D

This not bragging - almost 60% of people do see the gorilla first time up.

d4m10n 6th October 2021 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13621730)
This not bragging - almost 60% of people do see the gorilla first time up.

We apparently agree on the idea that people are relatively unreliable (40%) when distracted by other observations or considerations. We appear to disagree whether the unnamed witness in this particular case was thus distracted, but I'm erring on the side of skepticism rather than credulity, given that someone's livelihood is on the line.

smartcooky 6th October 2021 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13621746)
We apparently agree on the idea that people are relatively unreliable (40%) when distracted by other observations or considerations. We appear to disagree whether the unnamed witness in this particular case was thus distracted, but I'm erring on the side of skepticism rather than credulity, given that someone's livelihood is on the line.


The basketball/gorilla test is not just distraction, it is intentional misdirection - the participants are told what it is they are supposed to be looking for, and specifically, it gives them a task that will keep them occupied looking for it for the whole length of the video (counting the passes by players dressed in white). Without that misdirection, say, if you just asked them to watch the video and comment I what they saw, a LOT more people will see the gorilla.

Graham2001 7th October 2021 03:59 PM

A more interesting example of 'Cancel Culture' is this one where the 'Woke' combined with Creationists from the Discovery Institute to promote the denaming Western Washington Universitie's Huxley College.


Here is an account at The Panda's Thumb:


Quote:

Western Washington University’s Huxley College of the Environment was founded in 1969, the year of the Santa Barbara oil spill, when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire, and when Earth Day was proposed. It is now one of the oldest and most prestigious environmental colleges in the country. It was named for Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), famed not only as “Darwin’s Bulldog” after the 1859 publication of the Origin of Species, but also for his remarkable career, rising from a family too poor to pay for school to becoming a leading anatomist (proposing the kinship of humans with the great apes, and birds with dinosaurs), geologist, ethnologist, and philosopher (coiner of the word “agnostic,” foe of Social Darwinism). Above all he was a leading figure in making science a profession (rather than a hobby for priests and the landed gentry), and making a liberal science education available to all.

Despite accomplishing more than most could ever dream for science and public science education, Huxley is now in the dock at WWU. The main charge is racism, with many at WWU calling for Huxley College to be renamed. WWU’s president commissioned a Legacy Review Task Force which issued a Report making the rather elliptical claim that Huxley’s “ethnological accomplishments were grounded in white supremacist values that dehumanize and harm many members of the Western community.” More directly, the Report indicts him for advocating polygenism (the idea that different human races are separate species) and “many negative generalizations on the basis of race.”

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2021/10/creationists-social-justice-advocates-unite-take-down-huxley.html

Boudicca90 7th October 2021 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13621890)
The basketball/gorilla test is not just distraction, it is intentional misdirection - the participants are told what it is they are supposed to be looking for, and specifically, it gives them a task that will keep them occupied looking for it for the whole length of the video (counting the passes by players dressed in white). Without that misdirection, say, if you just asked them to watch the video and comment I what they saw, a LOT more people will see the gorilla.

The funny thing about this test is that because it is so famous and shown so often in college, it eventually becomes useless since everyone expects the gorilla to show up.

By the time my Psy 101 professor showed us the video, I had already seen it twice in other classes, lol.

Delphic Oracle 7th October 2021 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lobosrul5 (Post 13621612)
Serious question here, but even if everything he says is true is he really a victim? Its not a crime, or even a civil rights violation, in the United States to say something racist. Is having a racist slur levied at you any worse than just something mean and nasty?

Whereas an individual act of hostility could potentially indicate a prelude to violence coming from an individual, a racial slur delivered in a society where racist systems of oppression exist in powerful public institutions, the implied threat is multiplied in so many ways.

One person's fists could be scary. One frantic 9-1-1 call can be deadly.

Chris_Halkides 8th October 2021 06:13 AM

composer Bright Sheng
 
"A professor has taken over the undergraduate class previously taught by Bright Sheng, Leonard Bernstein Distinguished University Professor of Composition, David Gier, dean of the School of Music, Theatre & Dance announced Friday. The announcement comes almost a month after Sheng showed a video to an undergraduate composition seminar featuring an actor in blackface." Michigan Daily

The video was the 1965 movie version of the play Othello and the actor was Laurence Olivier. Some have been unhappy with a few aspects of Laurence Olivier's performance through the years, it must be acknowledged.

d4m10n 8th October 2021 05:27 PM

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1446239072213733376

Quote:

University defends ‘academic freedoms’ after calls to sack professor https://t.co/SuT02PVKxj

Chris_Halkides 9th October 2021 12:54 PM

More on Bright Sheng and Othello
 
Robby Soave wrote, "The University of Michigan is a public institution at which students and professors deserve free speech and expression rights. It is a violation of the university's cherished principles of academic freedom to punish Sheng for the choices he makes in the classroom. Screening a racially problematic film in an educational setting is neither a racist act nor an endorsement of racism. At this point, it is Sheng who is owed an apology from the broader university community for falsely maligning him."

I would go slightly further and say that (with some narrow exceptions) professors have first amendment rights at a public university (the distinction between public and private universities in the United States is worth making in this regard).

lionking 9th October 2021 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides (Post 13624427)
Robby Soave wrote, "The University of Michigan is a public institution at which students and professors deserve free speech and expression rights. It is a violation of the university's cherished principles of academic freedom to punish Sheng for the choices he makes in the classroom. Screening a racially problematic film in an educational setting is neither a racist act nor an endorsement of racism. At this point, it is Sheng who is owed an apology from the broader university community for falsely maligning him."

I would go slightly further and say that (with some narrow exceptions) professors have first amendment rights at a public university (the distinction between public and private universities is worth making in this regard).

Before I read this article I thought “this surely can’t be about Olivier’s Othello”. Of course it was.

Yes everyone has moved on from blackface, but I thought this movie was masterful. I first watched it as school student struggling to come to terms with Shakespeare, and this movie helped greatly.

At least the University didn’t buckle. I personally don’t believe that Sheng even needed to apologise. He explained the reasons he chose the film, and that should have been enough.

Elaedith 10th October 2021 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13624480)
Before I read this article I thought “this surely can’t be about Olivier’s Othello”. Of course it was.

Yes everyone has moved on from blackface, but I thought this movie was masterful. I first watched it as school student struggling to come to terms with Shakespeare, and this movie helped greatly.

At least the University didn’t buckle. I personally don’t believe that Sheng even needed to apologise. He explained the reasons he chose the film, and that should have been enough.

Cathy Young wrote an article about the Sheng case.

"If Sheng apologized for showing the film in class, I don’t think he needed to. It would have been enough to acknowledge the objections and discomfort and say that he should have introduced the screening with a disclaimer. It would have also helped to throw in a reminder that people who study art should know how to deal with classical art that is offensive by modern standards. And dropping the entire Othello project was totally unnecessary."

I think these apologies (especially by the university) are a mistake. It just fuels the witch hunts and purity spirals.

d4m10n 10th October 2021 05:10 PM

Just wait until they hear about how Shakespearean-era troupes shut out actresses altogether.

theprestige 10th October 2021 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elaedith (Post 13625250)
Cathy Young wrote an article about the Sheng case.

"If Sheng apologized for showing the film in class, I don’t think he needed to. It would have been enough to acknowledge the objections and discomfort and say that he should have introduced the screening with a disclaimer. It would have also helped to throw in a reminder that people who study art should know how to deal with classical art that is offensive by modern standards. And dropping the entire Othello project was totally unnecessary."

I think these apologies (especially by the university) are a mistake. It just fuels the witch hunts and purity spirals.

All this ends with the guillotine or the gulag.

Graham2001 11th October 2021 04:09 PM

An interesting editorial in The Atlantic on the Dorian Abbot (The guy who bought up Hitler when discussing the Woke. He's right, both wanted 'compliant' academia.) cancellation.


Quote:

Dorian Abbot is a geophysicist at the University of Chicago. In recognition of his research on climate change, MIT invited him to deliver the John Carlson Lecture, which takes place every year at a large venue in the Boston area and is meant to “communicate exciting new results in climate science to the general public.”

Then the campaign to cancel Abbot’s lecture began. On Twitter, some students and professors called on the university to retract its invitation. And, sure enough, MIT buckled, becoming yet another major institution in American life to demonstrate that the commitment to free speech it trumpets on its website evaporates the moment some loud voices on social media call for a speaker’s head.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ferent/620352/

Graham2001 13th October 2021 03:46 PM

The Fire.Org on the cancellation of Bright Sheng for 'thoughtcrime'. Of note Bright Sheng is BIPOC in some situations, he's 'White Adjacant' in others, which goes to show the arbitary nature of much of the 'Theory of Critical Race'



Quote:

Listing Professor Bright Sheng’s accolades, which span both music and higher education, is no small task. Despite the family piano being removed from his home during Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution as a child, Sheng was able to cultivate both his talent and passion for music as he grew up. He was awarded a MacArthur fellowship in 2001, and has twice been a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize. Since 1995, he has honed his musical and teaching expertise as the Leonard Bernstein Distinguished University Professor of Composition at the University of Michigan, far from his native Shanghai.

But in what has become an increasingly common-sounding story, Sheng has stepped down from teaching his composition seminar at the university’s School of Music, Theatre & Dance after a campus uproar. His offense? Showing the class a 1965 version of William Shakespeare’s classic Othello starring legendary actor Sir Laurence Olivier in the title role.

https://www.thefire.org/university-o...-othello-film/


I will note the linked article ends with a 'puff' for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, but it's still worth reading.

Graham2001 13th October 2021 04:05 PM

Jerry Coyne on the attacks on Kathleen Stock's situation where she is subjected to abuse and threats for arguing that biological sex is not a social construct.


Quote:

So what if the Times of London is a Tory paper? Gender-critical feminist Professor Kathleen Stock of Sussex needs a stalwart defense and they gave it to her. There was NO defense from the Guardian, of course, just a new article about how Stock’s own union (the University and College Union) is investigating her for transphobia, and that Stock feels that her teaching career is “effectively ended”. The Guardian loves that, and they would get rid of Stock if they had the power. They are reprehensible, especially on issues of freedom of speech.

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/...-so-should-we/


He also includes a screenshot of the full Times editorial, which is quite decent of him.

Cain 13th October 2021 09:27 PM

I was playing with my niece tonight, and to hyperbolize a distance she says, "Further than from here to Antarctica." She quickly added, "I used to say 'from here to China,' but that's racist."

I'm still reporting her to the Internet for past racism.

Chris_Halkides 14th October 2021 03:54 AM

A Verdi good point
 
The headline is "Oppose the right-wing, racialist attack on composer Bright Sheng at University of Michigan." The statement reads in part, "The International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE) at the University of Michigan denounces the racialist smear campaign against renowned composer, conductor and pianist Bright Sheng. The claim by a group of students and faculty that he committed a “racist act” by screening a film version of Othello with Laurence Olivier is as badly informed as it is false. All serious and democratic-minded students should refuse to be intimidated and come to Sheng’s defense." World Socialist Web Site..

The statement continued: Any suggestion that there is a hint of racism about Olivier’s performance is preposterous. The actor takes pains to bestow his character with the greatest possible dignity and humanity. The Michigan Daily wrote that in a letter sent to the Daily Sheng explained “that the original intent was to show how the opera composer Giuseppe Verdi had adapted Shakespeare’s play into an opera. Since cross-casting was frequent in opera, he did not think Laurence Olivier’s performance was ‘intended to be the same as the minstrel performances which did degrade African Americans.’” More on the IYSSE here.

The FIRE's Robert Shibley wrote, "But at public universities, the application of these mores through official discipline or punishment is prohibited by the First Amendment."

d4m10n 14th October 2021 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham2001 (Post 13628339)
Jerry Coyne on the attacks on Kathleen Stock's situation where she is subjected to abuse and threats for arguing that biological sex is not a social construct.

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/...-so-should-we/

Finishing up Stock's book today—usually try to push back on attempted cancellations by buying the cancellee's latest treatise—it's a fairly compelling read. She addresses many of the issues raised in the trans thread with a reasonable level of philosophical rigor.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:54 AM.

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