I think what's missed is that most of the extreme, even if common, cases of people demanding heretics be punished, are really just trolling. Trolls are continually pushing the boundaries, and institutions are afraid to stand up to them for fear or being labeled heretical (ironically) so we have this feedback of more and more ridiculous stuff that nobody actually believes becoming mainstream. By fighting it the way PG is, it (trolling) gets legitimized. Feeding the trolls doesn't work, we need to to better to collectively tune them out, picking a fight with them puts you in their territory and you've already lost.
Heresy
201–210 of 1001 posts
Re: Heresy
#202Re: Heresy
#203Woo boy. Generally liked the concept for the essay, but this piece jumps out as problematic (or just poorly written): > The clearest evidence of this is that whether a statement is considered x-ist often depends on who said it. Truth doesn't work that way. The same statement can't be true when one person says it, but x-ist, and therefore false, when another person does. Really? He can’t think of a statement that is r…
> Really? He can’t think of a statement that is racist when a white person says it and not a black person?
He can't think of a statement that is false when a white person says it and true when a black person says it (or vice versa).
Re: Heresy
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When people bring up posts like this they never say what the "heresies" are. People aren't getting "cancelled" for their takes on taxes. There are plenty of examples of stuff that is way less clearcut "that's bad" than your example. See e.g. David Schor getting fired for retweeting a black professor's paper arguing riots are bad for black political movements. See also, e.g. a friend ending our friendship because I…
> See also, e.g. a friend ending our friendship because I gently challenged her fat acceptance rhetoric, "Anti-fatness is more toxic to women's bodies than fatness has ever been." At best it's not falsifiable, but really it is just not a realistic statement. Is this really a topic you needed to weigh in on? I’m assuming you weren’t concern trolling or playing devil’s advocate, but it’s very easy to imagine how a “gen…
She's a professor and aims to be a public intellectual; she's written a book. I really think this in and of itself is invitation for dialogue. Also, our relationship was been fine talking about politics when I agreed with her, but any disagreement was treated as hostile/moral failure on my part. I'm really pretty good at listening and being respectful; these sorts of failure modes in communication in my life have come exclusively with dedicated self-identified activists.
Re: Heresy
#205Interesting how he chose to name nothing except anti-vaxxing.
Body autonomy is incredibly important.
But when people start ranting about anti-vaxxers that concept doesn't even enter their little heads. It's never I understand their rights and how important that is, but...
Because any complex thoughts on the issue are heresy.
Re: Heresy
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not "don't say gay", it's "don't subject, expect or mandate young kids to learn stuff about things like sexual orientation (or even gender identity) that they cannot possibly relate with prior to the biological changes of adolescence, and that are enough of a minefield for adults already. Leave this stuff to family and broader society for the time being."
It's not "leave this stuff to family". It's "you're going to jail if you dare to talk about it". That's the obvious violation of First Amendment: government cannot use force to dictate what you say. And this topic is not on the short list of exceptions (threats of violence etc.). And stepping back: realize you're being played by politicians. Republicans know well this bill is unconstitutional. They know there are top…
> That's the obvious violation of First Amendment: government cannot use force to dictate what you say.
Laws around hate speech and defamation seem to contradict you.
Re: Heresy
#207> Can a statement be x-ist, for whatever value of x, and also true? If the answer is yes, then they're admitting to banning the truth I disagree. The statement “very few women are capable of running a Fortune 500 company effectively” is factually true, but implicitly sexist (very few men are capable either). By banning those sorts of statements you’re not banning the truth, you’re just quieting assholes.
Is the reason it's sexist because it can be interpreted as "women are less capable than men"? You would say this other statement is false and sexist, correct?
"Women are less capable than men" is sexist; "The majority of women are physically and mentally incapable of running a Fortune 500 company" is a neutral hypothesis that can be asserted with anecdotal evidence, sociological studies, and if modern corporate leadership wasn't silent on the issue, there would also likely be firsthand testimony. For the record, the commenter above who casually states that "most women can't run Fortune 500 companies because most men can't either" <---THAT is sexist
Re: Heresy
#208Genuinely funny coming from the dude who insta-blocks anyone who even mildly disagrees with him about _anything_ on Twitter.
[deleted]
Re: Heresy
#209What I find most interesting are those arguing against "cancel culture" and the revival of heretics don't find issue with things like the "critical race theory" boogeyman and the "don't say gay"-style bills preventing teaching of sexuality topics. It's interesting how consistency of free thought isn't really the important thing here.
Another thing I have found related to heresy is that the strongest accusations of heresy often involve ideas and statements that are the most difficult to argue against.
Recently, I was involved in a workplace conversation about how the org had a certain gender/racial proportional makeup and there was a goal of those diversity numbers being different within a specified timeframe. I suggested that this implied bias, and was warned that what I said might offend people. I think this was because I said something fairly rational and it would have been difficult to argue against in rational terms. Along these lines, the calls to cancel Dave Chappelle for example are largely because he has made some good points.
Re: Heresy
#210It's important to remember that this particular kind of "heresy" is not about hurting an imaginary God, but actual real people. Questioning the legitimacy of geocentrism is a victimless crime. Questioning the legitimacy of gay marriage or gay adoption or sexual transitioning has very defined, specific victims that face real actual harms from these attitudes. Right now parents of trans children are being accused of be…
There is an OCEAN of difference between saying what this article is saying and being okay with the recent wave of anti-trans/anti-LGBT conservatism in the US.
Someone saying that "teaching about sexuality is akin to grooming" is clearly telling a lie. If someone gets shit for it, then the hubbub/cancellation is definitely not taking priority over the question of truth or falsity.
Heck, if anything, the anti-trans/anti-LGBT conservatism you're referring to also falls into the same issue: it's also bullshit "Heresy" that people use to punish others over truth.