Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't even figure out how to connect your response to what I wrote, so I can't possibly do any good by trying to reply to it.
The thread is about the norm "be open". Seems like you're saying society flourished in spite of having that norm.
Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
541–550 of 633 posts
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#542Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kaepernick [edit: almost] had a ring. You think the Browns couldn’t have used him? The Lions? The Bengals? Your point is also moot when a former NFL exec confirms he was blackballed for his protest. https://sports.yahoo.com/in-light-of-george-floyds-death-ex-... >Colin Kaepernick was not bounced by NFL team owners because of his skill. He was not bounced because of salary demands. And he was not bounced because he wa…
Quoted post unavailable.
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#543Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Abortions are not under threat at all, unless you count those claiming that you can’t have an abortion after 8 months pregnant when the baby can be born instead. Have you been living under a rock someplace? https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/txpep/research-briefs/senate-... https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-health-...
The Texas law was not supported by mainstream conservatives, it was done by Christians and the federal law is not under threat, this yet another thing meant rile people up to earn votes for a specific party. There is a zero percentage chance the Supreme Court re-hears the case on abortion.
Then how is it currently an enacted law that is also being copied in other GOP-controlled states?
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#544Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kaepernick [edit: almost] had a ring. You think the Browns couldn’t have used him? The Lions? The Bengals? Your point is also moot when a former NFL exec confirms he was blackballed for his protest. https://sports.yahoo.com/in-light-of-george-floyds-death-ex-... >Colin Kaepernick was not bounced by NFL team owners because of his skill. He was not bounced because of salary demands. And he was not bounced because he wa…
Quoted post unavailable.
As for lies, did you read the article I linked? A former NFL exec literally admits to it.
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#545Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then how do millions of people manage to accomplish this every single day ? Also, statements like this come across as a justification for not even trying. I hope that's not what you intend.
They accomplish it because the folks around them are normal human beings that don't completely fly off the handle when something they don't like is said by someone else. You talk about it, rib back or leave. It's not rocket science.
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#546Earlier quoted context omitted.
no chilling effects here..
My point is cancel culture is not very chilling if you're a competent speaker/writer, and it ought to be even less chilling than it is (possibly not chilling at all). If you believe you're entering a conversation with positive intent, a genuine point of view, and empathy for others, you are more or less immune to being cancelled.
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#547Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You are not any less capable of writing quality software if you are prohibited from using specific programming languages Are you implying that it's possible to write an efficient OS in a language other than the likes of C/C++/Rust? Do mention an example. >what idea is not expressable except in a way that results in effective cancellation? - A lot of Transgender people are teenagers with mental health adopting the id…
Your example of an idea that isn't expressible without effective cancellation is funny, because it's the precise position that many conservatives have expressed, who still seem to have jobs (e.g. Jordan Peterson). Honestly it's so common of an idea, it's actually odd you think such an idea results in "cancellation" at all. It's the default idea, in fact. You can't swing a dead cat in conservative circles without hear…
Do you want a list of examples of other academics who were harassed and fired for saying this same idea to be convinced it's actually quite a cancellable idea, or is one academic not being fired (and not for lack of trying) enough for you to be convinced that "kindness" is an effective cancel shield?
>You can't swing a dead cat in conservative circles without hearing, verbatim
It's kinda a natural position when you can't swing a cat (dead or alive) in a trans community without both you and the cat changing gender. I, for instance, am not traditionally conservative (atheist and vegetarian, which are not traditionally conservative positions where I live. Also a moderate trans supporter.) and I still arrived at such an idea purely by observation.
>And the "Can you write an OS in it?" is not a good metric for, "Can I write quality software?"
My analogy was meant to convey the fact "Banning certain kinds of languages effectively bans certain kinds of expressions", no more and no less. You can't write an OS in a programming language that doesn't expose low-level memory primitives, and you can't talk about sexual predators grooming teens in a natural language that doesn't expose quite a lot of non-polite primitives.
You saying that you could write quality software without them being OSes is like saying that you could say truths in China without them being truths about Tiananmen square, yes off course you can, but if you do want to talk about Tiananmen square, you're out of luck. Nobody ever said censorship suppresses the full 360-degree field of conversation, just a very particular cone that upsets the censors.
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#548Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you a "member of an unprivileged group?" If not, what exactly do you think life is like for us that we can't take a joke? Sticks and stones and whatnot: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rP0nqe... > Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent),…
The fundamental problem is that people have become conditioned to think of themselves as a member of a group first and an individual second. In many cases, the individual identity is completely obscured by the group identity. It doesn't matter if one is black, white, gay, straight, etc. It matters who they are as an individual, how they live their lives, care for their families, and so on. If one doesn't like a joke,…
What’s driving me nuts is that “identity politics” is about fake identities. Most of these “identity groups” are fronts for the white progressives who donate to liberal causes. E.g. MacKenzie Scott donated tons of money to “AAPI causes.” https://asamnews.com/2021/06/17/mackenzie-scott-donates-2-7-.... What the heck does she know about Asians or what causes they care about? I asked my dad if he could recognize any of the organizations on the list. Of course he couldn’t. What does that tell you about the incentive structure of these identity activist groups? As a result, the “Asian identity” and the “Muslim identity” that I see in the media seems to be essentially progressivism with window dressing, and has nothing to do with what my parents or aunts and uncles think about our culture. In fact, it’s often overly hostile to our values.
“Identity politics” doesn’t actually reflect what people in these groups want, except incidentally. E.g. “Asian activists” flipped out at Andrew Yang for a taking a more pro-policing stance, but most Asian voters supported him in the primary: https://www.slowboring.com/p/yang-gang. White progressives talk incessantly about “Black and brown people” but they hated Eric Adams, who overwhelmingly won the “Black and brown” vote. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/18/opinion/nyc-mayor-adams.h.... It’s not groups pursing their own political interests, but the political capital of minority groups being put in service of causes championed mainly by white people.
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#549Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But I certainly have the right to point out that transgender biological males aren't I... don't think you do, actually. I would argue that you should be able to start a conversation about the differences between trans women and cis women without that fear, but that's a) rather different than "pointing out" and b) highly dependent on how you go about that (and c), not a right, legally or morally). It's akin to me go…
Don’t be silly. A man who decides they want to be a woman is a human being who should absolutely be sympathized with and treated kindly, but simply isn’t a woman. That’s such an obviously reasonable opinion (even if you disagree with it) that there’s no need to tie yourself up in knots worrying about the difference between “pointing out” and “starting a conversation”. Yes, I mean “right” in an informal or moral sense…
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#550Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What we have now But this isn't a new thing, not even a little bit. The House Unamerican Committee, and anti-abolitionists (as in slavery) are both examples of exactly this from history. Arguably, worse and more extreme because of all the, you know, death and murder.
Of course political violence is not a new thing. And given your choice of examples, I feel compelled to remind you that it is certainly not just a right-wing phenomenon. I am simply stating the ideal, and how the present state of affairs differs from that ideal. I would also add that we are the downslope from a relatively high-water mark period of free speech, and I see no value in regressing in the manner we have.
Thing is, I'm not sure that's true. When do you think that high-water mark was?