ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 26th June 2020, 04:03 PM   #41
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,557
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I'm talking about the development of a social norm here, not some external authority.

Right now, the social norm being created and put in place is that if a person says something that "society" deems to be "bad", then "society" is right to persecute that person, and people associated with them, as well as anyone who opposes their persecution. The norm that is bubbling up is that "society" can, by force, deny livelihood to anyone that "society" decides isn't good enough. "Society" can issue death threats to individuals, their families, and their employers in order to evict the transgressor from that society.

That is absolutely something I think needs to be discussed. Because right now, leaving it up to each individual to try to decide whether or not they should say anything is kowtowing to a mob. And there's absolutely no reason to think that this mob will stop where you or I think they should stop. There's no guarantee that this mob will not decide that something you and I hold dear is now verbotten.
I think I tend to agree with you. This notion has been in the back of my head for some time, but I've had a hard time putting it into concrete terms, and thus a hard time really thinking it through.

I also think this is very important, and a subject that needs to be very carefully considered from a wide range of angles.

It seems to me that someone can post something unpopular on facebook & essentially lose their whole lives over it.

We've seen a few people lose jobs and college admissions. What's next? Doctors refusing to provide care to those they believe are racist or homophobic?

We already have "extra" punishments for hate crimes -which I strongly disagree with.

How far down this rabbit hole can we go before "Freedom of speech" is just an empty phrase with no practical meaning for real people?

Further...do we think humans are going to change over the next hundred years? Or do we realize that driving some proclivities -such as homosexuality or racism underground doesn't remove it, and instead simply causes a wound that festers and eventually boils over?
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 04:04 PM   #42
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 10,894
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
There are several cultures that place great importance on not making public scenes and spectacles, and I think that is admirable.
Are you against the very public protests going on throughout the US right now? Do you oppose gay pride parades?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 04:05 PM   #43
Safe-Keeper
Philosopher
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,201
Wow, lots of replies in such a short time.

@DragonLady:
We also - I promised myself I wouldn't get bogged down in anecdotes or specific incidents, but I guess it's hard not to - have cases like that dentist being forced to close his office, which affected his completely innocent employees because people decided they had to show how righteously angry they were, and what a horrible man the dentist was.

ETA: I admit that as the girl in the OP did say something pretty grave, she may not have been the best example to open the thread with.
__________________
"He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs
"I cannot say is is suffering from a pathological narcissistic personality disorder, but I think it is clear he is doing a perfect impersonation of someone who is." --Ladewig

Last edited by Safe-Keeper; 26th June 2020 at 04:07 PM.
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 04:07 PM   #44
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 56,020
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I think you should amend your prior position statement of "Common sense, proportionate response, and thinking carefully before publishing something to the entire globe."

In neither case did either of those people publish anything. In both cases, it was published by someone else without their consent. But in both cases, you seem just fine with it having been published by force by someone else who took offense.

So perhaps, it shouldn't be "use common sense before publishing to the entire world"... but rather "live in fear that someone might publish something without your consent".
It's been long-establish in law -- and common sense-- that actions in public can be photographed and filmed and published. There is no expectation of privacy. Neither minded being seen in action by the people who were present at the time. Publishing film footage merely widens that audience, it doesn't add one where there was none to begin with.


Quote:
You also say that Nick Sandmann should have kept to himself and minded his own business... but that's exactly what he did do. He was keeping to himself, and he was minding his own business. He didn't get involved in a public confrontation - a public confrontation was forced upon him. He did nothing but stand there.
He was always planning to stand right there, and just carried on with that original intention despite subsequent events? He chose to remain there, which got him involved.

Quote:
Do you perhaps mean to say that he should have run away when there was someone of color nearby, and his keeping to himself might possible be used against him by someone publishing without his consent the fact that he was keeping to himself and minding his own business?
What did I say above about your hyperbolic strawmen rephrasing? I'll repeat: every time YOU, Emily's Cat, ask "do you mean to say?" the answer is "no". Your interpretations are amusingly hysterical, but never correct.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 04:08 PM   #45
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 10,894
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I think you are running the edge of a paranoid delusion here. People reacting to stuff they hear about is not a new "social norm". There is not some "mob" out to persecute you for your wicked hot takes on issues. If you are terrified that what you say might make you unpopular then perhaps you ought to use common sense about what you say and where you publish it. Do you not now exercise judgment and consider your audience when you speak? Do you talk about sex at the dinner table with the grandparents and the archbishop? Do you talk about controversial politics at work with your coworkers? Do you complain about the servants in front of the servants? If not then congratulations! you're already a victim of this dreadful mob called "other people"!
TM, very straightforward questions here.

Do you support or oppose:
1) Publishing videos of people without their consent to the internet?
2) Doxxing people who have not consented to having their personal information made public?
3) Anonymously issuing death threats to people who have socially transgressed?
4) Using threat of force and cancellation to get people fired from their jobs or expelled from their schools?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 04:12 PM   #46
Safe-Keeper
Philosopher
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,201
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Funny how when racism and homophobia was culturally acceptable there was no concern about protecting the minority viewpoint, but now that the tides have turned we must suddenly worry about protecting people from the wicked mob. I'm sure it's just an amazing coincidence!
Well, yeah. That's the "quagmire of agreement", I suppose (unless I misunderstood you): when a gay person or woman is harrassed or receives hate mail, we all agree it's terrible, so there's no public discussion or widespread condemning of the action, because we sort of assume it'll get better, or that people who do these things should be punished. A kind of society-wide bystander effect, like when a person collapses in a public space and everyone walks by because they're confident someone will stop and help.

So ironically, it's when they start losing their patience and hitting back in kind that there's a backlash, because then all of a sudden we're divided in how to handle these things.
__________________
"He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs
"I cannot say is is suffering from a pathological narcissistic personality disorder, but I think it is clear he is doing a perfect impersonation of someone who is." --Ladewig
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 04:15 PM   #47
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 10,894
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
He was always planning to stand right there, and just carried on with that original intention despite subsequent events? He chose to remain there, which got him involved.
This is such an odd take on the events that I'm a bit at a loss over how to respond. It may not be what you intend, but it's really coming across as if you think the outcome of that situation was acceptable because... he was forced to be involved in something he didn't choose to be involved in? Because he didn't run away? Because he continued to stand where he was already standing when other people came to him?

I would really appreciate it if you fleshed this out some, because your few sentences here, on their own, don't make any rational sense to me.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 04:17 PM   #48
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 56,020
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Are you against the very public protests going on throughout the US right now? Do you oppose gay pride parades?
Bit of a derail, quizzing me on other political issues, but if you honestly care and aren't trying to score points in some stupid contest:

I'm neutral on the protests. I think the BLM protests have a valid and valuable point to make, but I also think that during a contagious pandemic it may be dangerously unwise to engage in such protests. Although public scenes are inherently rude, sometimes rudeness is justified, and in this case I think it is. So my opinions on those aspects of the protests cancel each other out, leaving me neutral: so I don't object to other people protesting, but I'm not doing it myself. I think on the whole they are a good thing, but I really wish there wasn't a pandemic going on during this. (Although I also wonder if the participation would be this high if so many people weren't out of work at the moment.)

As for gay pride parades I'm against those entirely, for three reasons: 1) parades are horrible, 2) gay pride has become commercialized and thereby robbed of its point, and 3) these events are sanitized, Disneyfied versions of queerness meant to appeal to straight people's acceptability. Respectability politics, in other words, which I regard with contempt. And also the participants are seriously at risk of skin cancer.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 04:19 PM   #49
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 10,894
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
Well, yeah. That's the "quagmire of agreement", I suppose (unless I misunderstood you): when a gay person or woman is harrassed or receives hate mail, we all agree it's terrible, so there's no public discussion or widespread condemning of the action, because we sort of assume it'll get better, or that people who do these things should be punished. A kind of society-wide bystander effect, like when a person collapses in a public space and everyone walks by because they're confident someone will stop and help.

So ironically, it's when they start losing their patience and hitting back in kind that there's a backlash, because then all of a sudden we're divided in how to handle these things.
I never found it acceptable to harass gay people or women, or to send them hate mail. I don't find it acceptable to harass non-gay people or men either, nor to send them hate mail.

I find it baffling that the behavior is deemed acceptable based on the target of such behavior. Isn't that the kind of outlook that we're supposed to be fighting against? Isn't it supposed to be freedom of belief for all beliefs, not just freedom of beliefs I approve of? Isn't it supposed to be freedom of speech for all speech, not just freedom of speech I agree with? Isn't it supposed to be the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for people who conform to my mores?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 04:20 PM   #50
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,557
Quote:
Funny how when racism and homophobia was culturally acceptable there was no concern about protecting the minority viewpoint, but now that the tides have turned we must suddenly worry about protecting people from the wicked mob. I'm sure it's just an amazing coincidence!
That's not entirely true, and I'm pretty sure you know it. A great many people stood up in the faces of family, friends, legislatures, law enforcement officers, teachers...etc. to speak up on behalf of minorities and homosexuals.

The current climate is not entirely their work by any means, but those voices were listened to by those who otherwise had their eyes and ears tightly shut; and so were able to convince many to at least rethink their stances and reconsider their views. That willingness to open minds and buck tradition led to desegregation and many other changes.

Also...as a gay man yourself, think about how you felt when you had to hide your identity, and consider that those who are racists and homophobes are wearing those shoes now. Maybe they deserve it, maybe they don't...but shouldn't we strive for a world where everyone can be accepted despite holding views that don't align with the current social trends?
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 04:25 PM   #51
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 56,020
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
TM, very straightforward questions here.

Do you support or oppose:
1) Publishing videos of people without their consent to the internet?
2) Doxxing people who have not consented to having their personal information made public?
3) Anonymously issuing death threats to people who have socially transgressed?
4) Using threat of force and cancellation to get people fired from their jobs or expelled from their schools?
1) I reject the false way you have framed that issue. There is a difference between public actions and private actions. Where there is no legal expectation of privacy, i.e. in public, then there can be no expectation that one will not be filmed and that film published. I have no objections to that. Your refusal to acknowledge the difference between public and private in the matter of privacy means you won't be winning many court cases on the matter.
2) It depends on what they have done. As in the example I posted above, a foolish wardrobe choice would not merit "doxxing" as that would be a disproportionate response. Someone hurting other people would absolutely be justifiably "doxxed".
3) Death threats are illegal, and also it's a breach of manners to do them anonymously to strangers. One should only threaten death to one's closest intimates, and it should always be for much better reasons than "social transgressions".
4) "Threat of force" sounds illegal. "Cancellation" hasn't been defined. Assuming you mean a PR campaign by members of the public meant to influence a third party to take action against the "transgressor" then again, it depends on what they did. I'd get a nurse fired if she admitted to harming patients, I'd get a teacher arrested if he admitted to abusing students.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 04:27 PM   #52
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 56,020
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
This is such an odd take on the events that I'm a bit at a loss over how to respond. It may not be what you intend, but it's really coming across as if you think the outcome of that situation was acceptable because... he was forced to be involved in something he didn't choose to be involved in? Because he didn't run away? Because he continued to stand where he was already standing when other people came to him?

I would really appreciate it if you fleshed this out some, because your few sentences here, on their own, don't make any rational sense to me.
Yes, he could have left. If unpleasant scenes erupt one can depart. That is one way --frequently the most sensible way-- to defuse a situation.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 04:32 PM   #53
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 56,020
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
That's not entirely true, and I'm pretty sure you know it. A great many people stood up in the faces of family, friends, legislatures, law enforcement officers, teachers...etc. to speak up on behalf of minorities and homosexuals.
But more people worked against, or stayed quiet. Think back decades, not just the last few years.

Quote:
The current climate is not entirely their work by any means, but those voices were listened to by those who otherwise had their eyes and ears tightly shut; and so were able to convince many to at least rethink their stances and reconsider their views. That willingness to open minds and buck tradition led to desegregation and many other changes.
Okay, and? That change was slow and incremental is not in dispute. Are you bringing that up because you think the currently unpopular views like racism will one day be slowly legitimized, and therefore we need to protect racist voices today? I doubt that's what you mean but I can't see the relevance otherwise.

Quote:
Also...as a gay man yourself, think about how you felt when you had to hide your identity, and consider that those who are racists and homophobes are wearing those shoes now. Maybe they deserve it, maybe they don't...but shouldn't we strive for a world where everyone can be accepted despite holding views that don't align with the current social trends?
I'm not fussed about homophobes having to keep quiet, thanks. I know it was such a great golden age of Free Speech when they could just call me "faggot" without consequences, but I don't think we ought to return to that wonderful era.

No, being gay and being a homophobe are not equal states of equal value deserving equal protection. I sincerely hope you typed that without realizing how incredibly horrible it is.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 04:35 PM   #54
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 10,894
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Bit of a derail, quizzing me on other political issues, but if you honestly care and aren't trying to score points in some stupid contest:
I'm not trying to score points. I don't really play that game, and I generally find it to be disrespectful and annoying. I may be angling toward a point, but I promise you I'm never trying to score them. I will frequently ask tangential questions, because there is a core concept that I feel is relevant, and because I don't want to lead or anchor a response. Although I don't always succeed, I do try to not ask leading questions or "trap" people into an answer. I strongly prefer a genuine and honest response.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I'm neutral on the protests. I think the BLM protests have a valid and valuable point to make, but I also think that during a contagious pandemic it may be dangerously unwise to engage in such protests. Although public scenes are inherently rude, sometimes rudeness is justified, and in this case I think it is. So my opinions on those aspects of the protests cancel each other out, leaving me neutral: so I don't object to other people protesting, but I'm not doing it myself. I think on the whole they are a good thing, but I really wish there wasn't a pandemic going on during this. (Although I also wonder if the participation would be this high if so many people weren't out of work at the moment.)
I find this to be at odds to your view on public spectacles and scenes. It leads me back to one of my points of complaint on this topic: subjectivity without consideration for principle. I also think that BLM has a valid point, even though I personally don't like protests or parades (it's the whole pile of people thing that turns me off, honestly. I just don't like crowds at all). They've chosen to make a spectacle, in order to gain awareness of their cause. And several times throughout human history, such activities have occurred - and in a great many of those occurrences, there were people who were very strongly opposed to that cause. The people opposed to the cause viewed it as an unnecessary spectacle, and felt that the people involved should just keep their opinions to themselves. It's the social form of "don't ask, don't tell".

Now, in the cases I mentioned above, the targets of the spectacle did not seek to make a spectacle or a scene. A spectacle was created for them. I'm not saying that they all behaved in ways that I approve of - for example, I don't approve of Amy Cooper's behavior. But in all of those cases, someone else made them a spectacle. Someone else published their behavior, drew attention to it, and made it a cause. Nick Sandmann did not create a spectacle - he and his class were the target of some vile comments from other people, and then were approach by a third party who invaded their space. Someone else took a video of it and crafted a narrative around the events to further their own agenda. And the result of that was pretty dramatic for Nick Sandmann.

Where do you draw the line between a person making a spectacle and a person having a spectacle made of them? Where do you draw the line for what an acceptable public response to something like that is?

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
As for gay pride parades I'm against those entirely, for three reasons: 1) parades are horrible, 2) gay pride has become commercialized and thereby robbed of its point, and 3) these events are sanitized, Disneyfied versions of queerness meant to appeal to straight people's acceptability. Respectability politics, in other words, which I regard with contempt. And also the participants are seriously at risk of skin cancer.
Sorry, i've got to laugh here. I agree with the commercialization, and I agree with your sentiment that parades are horrible full stop. But I cannot keep a straight face when it comes to them being sanitized events to appeal to straight people. Not when my nephew went in full pony-play apparel last year.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 04:41 PM   #55
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 56,020
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Now, in the cases I mentioned above, the targets of the spectacle did not seek to make a spectacle or a scene.
I disagree entirely. In the case of Amy, she very much made the spectacle of herself. She was in public, she acted badly. That's spectacle, whether the audience was one or one billion. She did it to her damn self.

In the case of the kid I'm less familiar with the circumstances. But still, in public, involved in a scene, could have left but did not. Again, that doesn't mean I think what he got was deserved, because it was disproportionate even if he had done what they thought he did. I don't think any response to him was justified. I'm just saying that he made a mistake in not leaving the scene, but instead staying and becoming part of it.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 04:44 PM   #56
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,557
Quote:
I'm not fussed about homophobes having to keep quiet, thanks. I know it was such a great golden age of Free Speech when they could just call me "faggot" without consequences, but I don't think we ought to return to that wonderful era.
Okay; calm down a moment.

I recognize that being called "faggot" is an extremely hurtful thing. I'm not in favor of anyone doing that, and while I was addressing your comments, none of what I'm saying is directed personally at you, okay?

Quote:
No, being gay and being a homophobe are not equal states of equal value deserving equal protection. I sincerely hope you typed that without realizing how incredibly horrible it is.
Let me come back to this, and try to address it in a way that's not so emotionally loaded, okay?

While I think this topic is important, I think part of the reason it's not being discussed more is because the potential for people on all sides of any issue to feel they're being flamed or worse is very high.

I think it will be necessary to find some ways to talk more in the abstract, while avoiding real world hot buttons.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 04:46 PM   #57
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 56,020
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
But I cannot keep a straight face when it comes to them being sanitized events to appeal to straight people. Not when my nephew went in full pony-play apparel last year.
Oh, dear. How to say this without spooking the horses...you inadvertantly prove my point by thinking that pony play is somehow edgy.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 05:03 PM   #58
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,202
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Oh, dear. How to say this without spooking the horses...you [inadvertently] prove my point by thinking that pony play is somehow edgy.
What would be edgy enough to seem unsanitized?
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 05:04 PM   #59
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 10,894
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I disagree entirely. In the case of Amy, she very much made the spectacle of herself. She was in public, she acted badly. That's spectacle, whether the audience was one or one billion. She did it to her damn self.

In the case of the kid I'm less familiar with the circumstances. But still, in public, involved in a scene, could have left but did not. Again, that doesn't mean I think what he got was deserved, because it was disproportionate even if he had done what they thought he did. I don't think any response to him was justified. I'm just saying that he made a mistake in not leaving the scene, but instead staying and becoming part of it.
In the case of Nick Sandmann, his school was on a class trip, and he was at the rendezvous point where they were waiting for their bus to show up. I'm not sure that leaving was a realistic option there.

Additionally, by your logic, a gay person who wants a wedding cake from a particular bakery doesn't have to make a scene and a spectacle when the baker doesn't want to make it for them... they could just leave, right? And Rosa Parks didn't have to make a scene, she could have just left.

Making a scene is in the eye of the beholder. Being persecuted and censored for "making a scene" is highly subjective.

Look, I don't have a problem with thinking that Amy Cooper's behavior was inappropriate - I think it was inappropriate myself. I would fully support Christian Cooper filing charges against her for threatening him, or seeking to get her charged with filing a false report. Those seem reasonable and justified to me.

But I do have a very big problem with it being posted on social media in the way it was, and with someone else providing her personal information to the whole internet. And I have a problem with the anonymous internet warriors sending her death threats, and coercing her employer to fire her, and seeking to have her credentials removed. I have a problem with a collection of anonymous people deciding that she has no right to her livelihood, and should lose her income and her well being as a result of that interaction. That isn't justice.

It causes me concern that your response seems to essentially be "well, she should have known better". That approach supports persecution. Sure, it's on the basis of her actions, not her beliefs... but persecution of gay people was also because of their actions. More specifically, it was persecution because one set of people believed that the actions of other people were socially unacceptable and deserving of punishment.

I don't think that mob justice was served when it was gay people getting beat up for the action of expressing their sexual orientation, and I don't think justice was served when it was Jewish people getting tortured into conversion by the Spanish inquisition, and I don't think justice was served when people suspected of being communist sympathizers were blacklisted.

I don't want that kind of censorship by threat to be normalized and accepted regardless of who the target is. It's the method and the principle that I object to.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 05:07 PM   #60
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 10,894
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Oh, dear. How to say this without spooking the horses...you inadvertantly prove my point by thinking that pony play is somehow edgy.
Please don't enlighten me... I have no problem with kinks, but I also don't really want to be made aware of all of them. Knowing that rule 34 exists is frightening enough for me.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 05:25 PM   #61
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,557
I believe people are going to hold views that are extremely hurtful to other people, no matter what the subject or the context.

If snoozling is frowned upon, the snoozlers have to hide their desire to snoozle (let alone the actual act of snoozling), and the anti-snoozlers will use the snoozlers as examples of terrible people.

It doesn't matter what the subject is, what the context is, what the emotional fallout is; the two groups will always exist, and they will always antagonize each other at best.

But at the end of the day, the left wing and the right wing belong to the same bird, and they must work together if civilization is gonna fly.

So, how do we figure out where to draw the lines? How far back into someone's past should we dig looking for evidence of holding the 'wrong' views? How much fallout is realistic for someone who holds an unpopular opinion today? How much reparation will that person be due if the culture shifts and those previously unpopular views become trendy again?

I guess the overarching question -the crux of the matter- is : How much weight should the blather posted on the internet carry when it starts bringing real world consequences to those who hold unpopular views?

Bear in mind: humans do not change in the span of a few lifetimes. While individuals can change their minds about issues, the rebellious nature of humans doesn't change. As I said in an earlier post 'round here somewhere, we colonized the world by standing up to things we didn't like, moving out, and starting our own new social order elsewhere. But we can't do that any more. Now, instead of being able to take our views 'cross the mountains where we can live as we choose, the only real estate available is online.

A person might say truly damaging things (for any of a variety of reasons) online and be haunted forever because their words get shared and reshared and reshared again.... Worse, sometimes those with more current views takes it upon themselves to make sure it reaches the ears of the person's employer, family, schoolmates...etc.

Then, even if somewhere deep inside he wishes he could take back those words, he can't. He's bought 'em, and any effort to change them later just looks pathetic. Apologizing has never worked, and I'm not sure anyone should be forced to change their names and leave the country because they've changed their minds.

TL;DR: Should there be a statute of limitations on someone's past words or social media posts, just like we have for many -or most- crimes?
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 05:31 PM   #62
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 25,512
Actions and behavior have social consequences. This isn't a new thing; what people are now trying to portray as a new development called "cancel culture" is merely what people have already for decades known as "boycotting". The consequences are somewhat swifter and more far-reaching now thanks to the internet, but then so are all consequences. When you take a public position, you don't have any control over the public response.

If somebody does something I think is repugnant, I have a right to choose not to associate with that person. I am free to decide that in practice this can include for instance refusing to give any of my business to whatever company they work for; and freedom of speech allows me to publicly explain the reason why I'm doing that, and even express encouragement for people who agree with me to do the same. It is true that if enough people agree with me and do likewise, it can impact the business's profitability, which will lead them to take corrective measures that might include firing the person who is leading so many people to shun their business (this is a predictable consequence of a free market effect that is known as "the invisible hand", and is widely promoted by conservative economists as an inherently good thing and superior and preferable to government regulation in almost any scenario). If setting that chain of causation into motion was my intent it's called a "boycott"; but it could also play out that way even if it wasn't necessarily my intention.

To prevent this sequence of events, you only have a few options:

1. Abolish my freedom of association - make it illegal for me to choose not to patronize a business for personal reasons. This seems to be unenforceable even in theory because if I never vocalize my reasons for not doing business with Company X then my not walking through the door because I dislike one of their employees is indistinguishable from me not walking through the door because I think Company Y's pizza tastes better.

2. Abolish my freedom of speech - make it illegal for me to either say publicly why I'm not patronizing the business, or to encourage other people to do what I'm doing, or both. Choosing this option at some point for some class of their citizens is ubiquitous among authoritarian governments, and it works - but, well, freedom of speech is abolished.

3. Forbid businesses via regulation from responding to free-market forces by firing employees. This might "work" on paper; but in practice it simply dooms the business to fail which leads to the same result, as can be seen from the fate of self-owned small businesses when their owners get boycotted. Obviously they can't fire themselves or that one family member they employ, so they bravely take a stand and then go out of business.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 05:40 PM   #63
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,557
Quote:
2. Abolish my freedom of speech - make it illegal for me to either say publicly why I'm not patronizing the business, or to encourage other people to do what I'm doing, or both. Choosing this option at some point for some class of their citizens is ubiquitous among authoritarian governments, and it works - but, well, freedom of speech is abolished.
This is one of my biggest fears. I may hate what some people have to say, but I am very much in favor of their right to say it.

Speech has always carried consequences regardless of the forum, but now I suspect the consequences are taking on lives of their own, and blowing up far beyond what is reasonable in some cases.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 05:47 PM   #64
Safe-Keeper
Philosopher
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,201
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I never found it acceptable to harass gay people or women, or to send them hate mail. I don't find it acceptable to harass non-gay people or men either, nor to send them hate mail.
I never claimed you did?
__________________
"He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs
"I cannot say is is suffering from a pathological narcissistic personality disorder, but I think it is clear he is doing a perfect impersonation of someone who is." --Ladewig
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 07:05 PM   #65
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,230
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Funny how when racism and homophobia was culturally acceptable there was no concern about protecting the minority viewpoint, but now that the tides have turned we must suddenly worry about protecting people from the wicked mob. I'm sure it's just an amazing coincidence!
If the goal is not to put an end to lynching- and is instead simply to change the victims from "you" to "me", you will understand of course, when I decline to get with the program.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 07:47 PM   #66
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,765
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post


It's an interesting and important topic, but the lack of focus makes it hard to post my opinion(s).

I'll give the thread a bit of time to mature.
You’ll be waiting a long time.
If other threads of this nature here are anything to go by, maturity seems to be the first thing to get thrown out.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 07:48 PM   #67
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,550
I'm quite sure there are many instances where utterances that should have been allowed to slide have resulted in excessive repercussions. We all have seen plenty of examples on all sides of the aisle of stupid people reacting to trivial or poorly thought-out statements with venom and death threats and so forth. It's too bad when it happens, whether it's a stupid self-entitled liar from Central Park or a left-leaning congresswoman. Venomous and hateful jibes and death threats are always wrong. So I do have to say with Safe-Keeper that I wish people would stay in proportion, leave the poor girl alone, and not be ******** about it.

But I have to say I'm also struck by the irony here, since this person's opinion was essentially that Floyd should have appreciated and expected disproportionately dire and fatal consequences for his misbehavior, and should have stopped to think before he did stuff. Whether or not that was a wise thing to say, one can't help but wonder why similar rules don't apply here. Before you pass a phony bill, stop and think "I might die for this." Before you hit the enter button on the next mean-tempered tweet, stop and think "I might get in trouble for this."

She stated that if a person commits a transgression he is to blame even for outstandingly disproportionate consequences, and has thereby become an unwitting object lesson for her own opinion.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

Last edited by bruto; 26th June 2020 at 07:49 PM.
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 07:59 PM   #68
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,230
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I'm quite sure there are many instances where utterances that should have been allowed to slide have resulted in excessive repercussions. We all have seen plenty of examples on all sides of the aisle of stupid people reacting to trivial or poorly thought-out statements with venom and death threats and so forth. It's too bad when it happens, whether it's a stupid self-entitled liar from Central Park or a left-leaning congresswoman. Venomous and hateful jibes and death threats are always wrong. So I do have to say with Safe-Keeper that I wish people would stay in proportion, leave the poor girl alone, and not be ******** about it.

But I have to say I'm also struck by the irony here, since this person's opinion was essentially that Floyd should have appreciated and expected disproportionately dire and fatal consequences for his misbehavior, and should have stopped to think before he did stuff. Whether or not that was a wise thing to say, one can't help but wonder why similar rules don't apply here. Before you pass a phony bill, stop and think "I might die for this." Before you hit the enter button on the next mean-tempered tweet, stop and think "I might get in trouble for this."

She stated that if a person commits a transgression he is to blame even for outstandingly disproportionate consequences, and has thereby become an unwitting object lesson for her own opinion.
And those who would destroy her life for that opinion are exemplars of the exact same irony.
"People like George Floyd should not pay drastic consequences for their deliberate mistakes- but people who don't agree should pay drastic consequences for the mistake of deliberately disagreeing"
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

Last edited by Distracted1; 26th June 2020 at 08:01 PM.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 08:04 PM   #69
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 81,631
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Agreed! Let's talk about canceling Richard Carrier in particular. Or Ben Radford. Or Michael Shermer. Or Neil Tyson. Or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Or Linda Bellos. (Etc. & so forth...)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk


No idea what you are on about.
__________________
Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.

Space Force.
Because feeding poor people is socialism.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 08:13 PM   #70
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 81,631
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
...

As for gay pride parades I'm against those entirely, for three reasons: 1) parades are horrible, 2) gay pride has become commercialized and thereby robbed of its point, and 3) these events are sanitized, Disneyfied versions of queerness meant to appeal to straight people's acceptability. Respectability politics, in other words, which I regard with contempt. And also the participants are seriously at risk of skin cancer.
Wow, where do you live?

Certainly not like that here in Seattle. And I haven't noticed this happening elsewhere.

Not that I don't think you have legit insight. It just hasn't been my experience.
__________________
Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.

Space Force.
Because feeding poor people is socialism.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 08:22 PM   #71
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,202
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
No idea what you are on about.
In the words of the OP, I'm talking about "Call-out culture, and campaigns to punish, or 'cancel' dissenting voices..." who've (allegedly) gone beyond the bounds of acceptable deviation from the norm. Those are just the first few names to spring to mind from skeptic and freethinking social circles; my point was merely that we've seen all this before.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 26th June 2020 at 08:24 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 08:33 PM   #72
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,265
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
And those who would destroy her life for that opinion are exemplars of the exact same irony.
"People like George Floyd should not pay drastic consequences for their deliberate mistakes- but people who don't agree should pay drastic consequences for the mistake of deliberately disagreeing"
She was slowly murdered over eight minutes in broad daylight while people pleaded with her murders to stop?

No, certainly not the exact same irony.

On the topic in general, it's pretty amusing to see so many skeptics argue for general heuristics/legalism over such a gargantuan topic as 'justice'. Cases should be evaluated on their merits. Some consequences are not proportional and there are a universe of factors that could come into play.

In the example from the OP? Death threats are not just, getting kicked from college for violating their good rules is just. People will come to different conclusions, but if you're going to compare, make the comparisons to roughly equivalent things.

You know what absolutely in no valid way equivalent? Existing. Immutable personal characteristics being equivocated with the action of expressing vile beliefs lacks intellectual merit. 'Existing as a gay person' or 'being black' isn't the same as 'expressing that gay people should be attacked' or 'excessive force up to and including murder that disproportionately effect black people is just the best'. Not even 'being a racist' is the same because, well, it's a belief and not part of your being.

The harms being examined as equivalent, like in the post I just quoted, are plain not the same either. Facts and evidence matters. The harms caused by 'being a black person' or 'expressing an unpopular but harmless opinion' are not the same as 'calling into question the moral/intellectual integrity of an organization' or 'supporting ongoing lynchings'.

Justice also doesn't stop being justice just by putting 'social' in front of it, but it certainly appears to make quite a few people turn the rationalization dial to eleven and break off the knob.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 08:34 PM   #73
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 25,512
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
In the words of the OP, I'm talking about "Call-out culture, and campaigns to punish, or 'cancel' dissenting voices..." who've (allegedly) gone beyond the bounds of acceptable deviation from the norm. Those are just the first few names to spring to mind from skeptic and freethinking social circles; my point was merely that we've seen all this before.
None of these individuals besides Hirsi Ali have been "cancelled" for their opinions, in the sort of way being discussed here.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 08:53 PM   #74
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,230
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
She was slowly murdered over eight minutes in broad daylight while people pleaded with her murders to stop?

No, certainly not the exact same irony.

On the topic in general, it's pretty amusing to see so many skeptics argue for general heuristics/legalism over such a gargantuan topic as 'justice'. Cases should be evaluated on their merits. Some consequences are not proportional and there are a universe of factors that could come into play.

In the example from the OP? Death threats are not just, getting kicked from college for violating their good rules is just. People will come to different conclusions, but if you're going to compare, make the comparisons to roughly equivalent things.

You know what absolutely in no valid way equivalent? Existing. Immutable personal characteristics being equivocated with the action of expressing vile beliefs lacks intellectual merit. 'Existing as a gay person' or 'being black' isn't the same as 'expressing that gay people should be attacked' or 'excessive force up to and including murder that disproportionately effect black people is just the best'. Not even 'being a racist' is the same because, well, it's a belief and not part of your being.

The harms being examined as equivalent, like in the post I just quoted, are plain not the same either. Facts and evidence matters. The harms caused by 'being a black person' or 'expressing an unpopular but harmless opinion' are not the same as 'calling into question the moral/intellectual integrity of an organization' or 'supporting ongoing lynchings'.

Justice also doesn't stop being justice just by putting 'social' in front of it, but it certainly appears to make quite a few people turn the rationalization dial to eleven and break off the knob.
Sometimes, when replying to a post that is itself a reply to another post, it behooves one to read the original post for contextual clues to the underlying meaning of the reply post.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:51 PM   #75
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,550
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
And those who would destroy her life for that opinion are exemplars of the exact same irony.
"People like George Floyd should not pay drastic consequences for their deliberate mistakes- but people who don't agree should pay drastic consequences for the mistake of deliberately disagreeing"
Indeed they're wrong too, and it goes round and round, but it's not quite exactly the same irony - at least we certainly should hope not - as our posted example has not actually been murdered.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 11:12 PM   #76
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,957
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Funny how when racism and homophobia was culturally acceptable there was no concern about protecting the minority viewpoint, but now that the tides have turned we must suddenly worry about protecting people from the wicked mob. I'm sure it's just an amazing coincidence!
I don't think this is a correct reading of history. When I was growing up in the 1970s, there was an awful lot of concern for protecting the minority viewpoint. Anything that smacked of McCarthyism was decried. Blacklisting was considered a terrible thing.

Sadly, we have entered a new era of blacklisting, and it is not a good thing at all.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 11:37 PM   #77
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,957
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Yes, he could have left. If unpleasant scenes erupt one can depart. That is one way --frequently the most sensible way-- to defuse a situation.
Yes, he could have left, but why would he?

The problem wasn't Nick Sandmann, and the problem wasn't really even Nathan Phillips. Sandmann was there, waiting for a bus, doing nothing at all wrong. Nothing. Nathan Phillips misunderstood a situation, and got into a bad situation through that misunderstanding but, really, it was no big deal. He banged a drum in a kid's face. There are a lot worse things he could do. No violence. No real harm done to either party.

The problem was the internet mob, ironically including the mainstream media who reported on the subject after it went viral. They are the "mainstream" media, but these days they often follow in the footsteps of twitter or facebook. They basically accepted the reports. Suddenly there was a mob insulting Sandmann, demanding he be thrown out of school, apologizing on his behalf, making anonymous death threats. It was pretty bad stuff.

And that's the problem. The mob's reaction. Attack first, ask questions later. Jump to conclusions. Take things out of context. Exaggerate problems. Turn an insignificant statement into the embodiment of a great social evil. Before you know it the mob is demanding retribution against a seventeen year old girl for repeating something she undoubtedly heard at home or in her own social media echo chamber. Horror of horrors, instead of taking a careful look at the situation, she gave a knee jerk repetition of a common meme, that the police only attack bad people. For this, she cannot be allowed to attend a university and receive an education. How's that for irony? Her beliefs are so ignorant that we will refuse to educate her.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 26th June 2020 at 11:38 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 12:37 AM   #78
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,393
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Because it's common sense and up to the individual to decide. And gamble on.
I find it scary that not only is "keep your mouth shut for fear of reprisals" the norm but that you think that it should be the norm. That anything you say or have ever said could at any time be used as a weapon against you.

This sort of mentality creates a climate of fear where everybody distrusts their neighbour. That has been the hall mark of totalitarian societies throughout history. A free society is dead as a concept.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 02:17 AM   #79
dann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 11,368
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
One of the things I've come across when discussing antivax in Norway is a certain kind of... sub-culture of antivaxxer trolls who will harrass and try to sabotage the lives of particularly outspoken people who disagree with them. They will send them hateful messages, carry out smear campaigns, often trying to paint them as bullies or even more horrible things like pedophiles, and, call their employers to try to sabotage their careers. I always considered the latter a particularly vile tactic, and it's come to be something I associate with trolls with no scrouples.

15 years ago, three of the most active skeptics in Denmark were exposed to that kind of harassment. It is particularly disturbing when you are a teacher and they make you out to be a pedophile.

The campaign started at the beginning of the summer holidays when a newspaper published an article by a high-school teacher describing how his female students came on to him. The newspaper asked his principal and the leader of the students council to comment on it and published without ever bothering to find out if the article was real. Which it wasn't.
The article was disavowed in the paper the next day, but for a year copies of the article were shared online on woo message boards.

At this point, I got involved and tried to find the organizers of the campaign. As soon as I started, I, also a high-school teacher, was subjected to the same kind of harassment online. They even made a false profile, using my address and my photo from my school's website, and had 'me' ask teenagers to meet me at a café next door to where I live.
I immediately told my school, my neighbors and even the owner of the café what was going on and asked them to tell me if anybody tried to contact them. Apparently, nobody ever did.

A couple of years later, one of the organizers of the campaign who had now become a successful psychic was exposed as a fraud by an investigative TV show. They set him up, using fake websites to commemorate (imaginary) dead people. It put an immediate stop to his career as a psychic, and the public reaction when he appeared as a magician in a talent show was also a blow to his ambitions in that field. He has changed names a couple of times, and his latest attempt to earn money with little effort was an Amazon Kindle scam, also rather unsuccessful, I think.

On another occasion, a group of satanists sent a letter to my principal accusing me of harassing them. Since they didn't include any examples of my alleged harassment, it was pretty easy to convince him that the woman who signed the letter was a crazy. What had actually happened was that her satanist husband had confused me with somebody else online and got awfully offended when it was pointed out to him. He actually closed down the whole (pretend skeptic) message board two days after having banned me because he couldn't cope with having been proved wrong.

These things happen. There are two ways to deal with them:
1) You can remain anonymous online.
2) You can be open about who you are.
I belong to the second category and never considered anonymity.

If your online activities consist of being a nazi, I can see why you would want to remain anonymous. But the real problem is that you are a nazi - and not that people found out about it.
If you fight nazis (or psychics, or astrologers, or ...) online, you have the upper hand in any debate, which is why they tend to resort to other tools than arguments. Many of them are actual psychopaths, and it is probably wise to consider taking some kind of precautions against them.

Since these groups are more or less impervious to reason, I can see why some antifas think it's a good idea to dox them to make them realize that their hate mongering or cons may have unpleasant consequences not just for the people they harass but for themselves as well.

It is a pretty safe way to dominate them, as Trump would say. It would be interesting to know how many of the actually learn from the experience.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 02:52 AM   #80
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,296
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
I hate to say it but I don't think it's a 'trend' that mobs have suddenly discovered mob justice - I think we're just seeing ancient human behavior that used to be occult, because online communities are more visible.

Or maybe, it's arguably a trend that it's becoming more visible, I'll agree to that.



ETA: and the reason I'm kinda confused is that Skeptics have quite the history of Johnny Letter Writing. "Hey, I'll bet the university doesn't know that professor does unethical things as a side business, we should tell them," goes back to the first call to action for CSICOP in the 1970s. If trying to get somebody fired by writing their boss, or getting them booted from a degree program is unethical, Skeptics are guilty as charged.

Just a specific datapoint, Dr. Polevoy was absolutely trying to dox "Adam Dreamhealer" when he heard he was in a premed program. The idea being that somebody who hid his past as a fraudulent faith healer should probably not be enrolled in medical school.

I agree with you not seeing anything new. This is basic human behaviour that has always occurred. The use of social media and our now greater ease of communication does mean it can happen faster than ever.

I remember reading stories here on the forum years ago about the consequences for teachers being “outed” to their communities and losing their jobs, and outed not for being homosexual but for being an atheist.

I do wonder if it seems to be different to some people because of who tends to be on the receiving end these days? But even then my suspicions are that is more to do with which stories are deemed “newsworthy” than a real shift.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.