https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/10/real-problem-with-cancel-culture/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/10/real-problem-with-cancel-culture/)
I think the left is going too far and it will be no better than under Trump's boot.
QuoteThe online "cancel culture" of Twitter mobs, public shamings and the occasional public firing has become pretty unpleasant of late. And unsurprisingly, people whose job it is to say things resent being hushed. Hence "The Letter," published this week by Harper's Magazine, in which 153 writers and public intellectuals warned that widespread cancellation is chilling the free exchange of ideas.
Indeed it is. I've been hearing from people, center-left as well as center-right, who have moved from astonishment to concern to terror as senior editors were fired for running op-eds written by conservative senators or approving inept headlines; as professors were investigated for offenses such as "reading aloud the words of Martin Luther King"; as a major arts foundation imploded because its statement of support for Black Lives Matter was judged insufficiently enthusiastic.
These people were becoming afraid of their own colleagues, who might, if they feel they're not being listened to, leak internal communications to friendly websites, or organize a public protest on Twitter.
Twitter's reaction to The Letter seemed to illustrate these concerns; unsurprisingly, the letter triggered some of the very tactics it implicitly condemns. To the panicked defenders of the old liberal order, it was a self-rebuttal of progressive claims that they weren't trying to stifle free expression, even of anodyne sentiments like: "The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away."
Coincidentally, this controversy erupted just after Osita Nwanevu of the New Republic had published one of the best defenses of cancel culture, justifying it as an exercise of vital First Amendment rights, not just to express displeasure with the words of others, but to freely associate with like-minded people. Which implies the right not to associate, either.
For backers of The Letter, Nwanevu offers a useful clarification: "Free speech" has turned into a fight about institutional norms and associational privileges, not just civil rights. The arguments may overlap with the civil rights debate, but the points of difference matter.
Queer Harry Potter fans respond to J.K. Rowling's comments on transgender women
Queer Harry Potter fans are grappling with their identities and attachment to the franchise in the wake of J.K. Rowling's stance on transgender women. (Monica Rodman/The Washington Post)
To be clear, I'm not neutral in that institutional fight. The cancelers aren't merely trying to expand the range of acceptable ideas so that it includes more marginalized voices. They are pressuring mainstream institutions, which serve as society's idea curators, to adopt a much narrower definition of "reasonable" opinion. The new rules would exclude the viewpoints of many Americans.
Intellectual monocultures are inherently unhealthy, and the tactics by which the new orthodoxy is being imposed are destructive. But I'm enough of an old-school liberal to think that I have to persuade my opponents, and I doubt they'll be moved by one more anthem to the glories of open inquiry.
They might, however, consider a few pragmatic problems with imposing their code by Twitter force. Twitter, with its 280-character limit, is not a medium for making lengthy, nuanced arguments. It's most effective at signaling the things you can't say. Consider the ultimate Twitter put-down: Delete your account.
That's especially a problem for institutions that are in the business of making arguments. Effectively handing over the reins of power to the Twittersphere, as seems to be happening, means offering control to those who are especially adept at not making arguments.
More broadly, this approach is at odds with what makes any institution function as more than a collection of self-supervising individuals. When much of your workforce is worried about summary firing, they put more and more effort into protecting themselves, and less and less effort into advancing the work of the institution. Doubly so when it is fellow employees who are pressing public attacks, as happened with the Twitter insurrection against a New York Times op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). Cotton had called for deploying the military to control riots; outraged staffers responded through coordinated tweets, which read, "Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger."
Though it was framed in the language of workplace safety, this was the kind of critical pressure campaign that is normally run by outsiders, not insiders — customers, not workers. In this, they are demonstrating a growing tendency that conservative policy maven Yuval Levin recently identified among American elites: people treating their institutions as platforms for personal performance, rather than a group effort with its own larger work. That's a tendency Twitter encourages, and not just among journalists, or academics: The foremost example is President Trump.
In fairness, the insiders of cancel culture might say that they have no choice: Twitter was their only way to accelerate urgent value shifts that might otherwise have taken decades. They're right that Twitter speeds everything up, and they're right that causes like racial equality are urgent — and also that white, straight, cisgender liberals always seem to be asking marginalized people to wait until they get around to fixing things.
And yet, even the critics clearly recognize that there is great value in these institutions. They might also recognize that there are reasons that institutions favor incremental, internal change. If you hold those sorts of fights on a public and inherently limited platform, then some part of your audience will inevitably wonder whether the ensuing consensus, such as it is, reflects what people actually think, rather than who they are afraid of.
So achieving victory this way risks damaging the ultimate prize, which is the power those institutions have as institutions, not just algorithmic amplifiers. That power is rooted in the perception that they are the patient accumulators, and, yes, the occasional revisionists, of something broad enough to be called "mainstream discourse."
It's that power, not the names on the doors, that lets those institutions establish the boundaries the cancelers are really hoping to control: not just of what people are willing to say in public, but what they are willing to believe.
Cancel culture has been around for long time.
Like in colonial times when activists pushed for boycotts of British goods and publicly shamed those who broke line.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 12, 2020, 09:52:45 PM
Cancel culture has been around for long time.
Like in colonial times when activists pushed for boycotts of British goods and publicly shamed those who broke line.
Were you agreeing with Viper?
:P
"under Trump's boot". :lol: The problem with Trump is not that he's tyrannical.
The far right doesn't like what they're saying they murder you.
The far left doesn't like what you're saying they are mean to you on twitter and boycott what you're selling.
:hmm:
https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1280130364804001797
Quote from: Jeet HeerThis is a big reason why I can't take the people who talk about cancel culture seriously. Their unwillingness to propose actual solutions to unjust firings betrays the fact that goal is simply to shore up the status quo with browbeating.
Quote from: Max Kennerly
If "cancel culture" is wrongly costing people their jobs, we can:
➡️ Strengthen unions
➡️ Prohibit termination without cause
➡️ Extend Loudermill & Pickering rights to private employment
Strange how "cancel culture" critics never propose giving employees more power or rights
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 13, 2020, 03:35:46 AM
:hmm:
https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1280130364804001797
Quote from: Jeet HeerThis is a big reason why I can't take the people who talk about cancel culture seriously. Their unwillingness to propose actual solutions to unjust firings betrays the fact that goal is simply to shore up the status quo with browbeating.
Quote from: Max Kennerly
If "cancel culture" is wrongly costing people their jobs, we can:
➡️ Strengthen unions
➡️ Prohibit termination without cause
➡️ Extend Loudermill & Pickering rights to private employment
Strange how "cancel culture" critics never propose giving employees more power or rights
Is he advocating unions fighting the firing of people when it happens on grounds of racism or similar? The police unions are already doing that. As a solution to the overall problem of racism and overreactions to it, it seems sub-optimal.
Quote from: Tamas on July 13, 2020, 03:41:43 AM
Is he advocating unions fighting the firing of people when it happens on grounds of racism or similar? The police unions are already doing that. As a solution to the overall problem of racism and overreactions to it, it seems sub-optimal.
I think he's advocating for some base level employment rights - not like in many US states where you can be fired for no reason whatsoever (ie it's not linked to your contract) without notice, which probably does encourage PR firings in the middle of a media storm. For example the Latino telecoms engineer who made an Ok sign, that a (white) person interpreted as the white power symbol (I've long wondered when that very online interpretation by users and critics would collide with the 95% of people who know nothing about it) who complained, kicked up a fuss. The guy got fired and the white guy who complained later admitted he might have misinterpreted the situation. With decent employment protections it's really unlikely that person gets fired because there'll be an investigation, legal will get brought in etc.
In the UK there probably is a clause in your contract about not bringing the company into disrepute or something similar, but posting something online is probably not serious enough to be dismissed immediately (although I could see that happening if it was really bad or targeted at individuals) so you'd probably have your 1+ month of notice and there's definitely a risk that for the employer that they'll end up in a tribunal.
For what it's worth with cancel culture I think the fundamentals of it aren't new. I think the bits that are new and potentially problematic is exactly that example - it is being shaped in the context of online discourse both by the far right and people fighting the far right. That's creating a set of symbols and codes and language that are, at this stage, mainly online and I think the real risk is when that online culture war clashes with ordinary people in the general public who are not very online because I think there is a very real risk as in that example. But that's not specific about cancel culture, I think it affects other bits of our politics and culture more generally about how internet culture interacts with the real world. Kill All Normies is really good, if not specificallly on this point.
That's actually a good point. The reason a cancel culture victim is fucked is because it's so much easier to just get rid of the problem. The people doing the firing are just a chain of employees themselves who don't won't to get cancelled themselves for supporting the most horrible person on earth. Remove the option to quickly fire someone to make the issue go away, and Twitter will focus on some other shiny thing before the process can run its course.
Quote from: Tyr on July 13, 2020, 02:52:45 AM
The far right doesn't like what they're saying they murder you.
Rarely so, because they are usually watched carefully by authorities.
Quote
The far left doesn't like what you're saying they are mean to you on twitter and boycott what you're selling.
And in the process, you lose your reputation, your friends, your carreer, your sources of income.
I'd prefer to be dead.
Problematic if the far right are the authorities
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 13, 2020, 07:52:47 PM
Problematic if the far right are the authorities
Frex: the Philippines
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 13, 2020, 07:52:47 PM
Problematic if the far right are the authorities
not better when the far left is the authority.
Quote from: viper37 on July 13, 2020, 05:50:38 PM
And in the process, you lose your reputation, your friends, your carreer, your sources of income.
I'd prefer to be dead.
Then don't complain about left-wing activists using violence.
Bari Weiss, moderate conservative columnist at the NYT, resigns. More fuel in the debate over cancel culture.
QuoteDear A.G.,
It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.
I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper's failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn't have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.
I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.
But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn't a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.
Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.
My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I'm "writing about the Jews again." Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly "inclusive" one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.
There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I'm no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.
I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper's entire staff and the public. And I certainly can't square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.
Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.
What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person's ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.
Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.
It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed "fell short of our standards." We attached an editor's note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it "failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa's makeup and its history." But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed's fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati.
The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its "diversity"; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.
Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.
Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the "new McCarthyism" that has taken root at the paper of record.
All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they'll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you'll be hung out to dry.
For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. "An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It's an American ideal," you said a few years ago. I couldn't agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.
None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don't still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: "to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion."
Ochs's idea is one of the best I've encountered. And I've always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.
Sincerely,
Bari
Sounds like an internal NY Times matter. I'm not terribly interested in the office politics of dysfunctional workplaces.
Just a nitpick and not a dismissal of her letter, but does it really matter what an artist thinks about politics? There wasn't any mention of lizardmen in The Color Purple and nothing wrong with admiring its author.
Spoilers FFS.
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2020, 12:39:10 PM
Sounds like an internal NY Times matter. I'm not terribly interested in the office politics of dysfunctional workplaces.
I didn't read all of it, but the snippets I read seem to reflect pretty well on the problem with intellectual discourse among the liberals lately. I'm sure there is a name for it, but I call it differential skepticism: uncritical acceptance of what fits your worldview, and skepticism or even unreasonable skepticism of what doesn't. It's sort of an ideological equivalent of "for my friends everything, for my enemies the law".
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2020, 12:39:10 PM
Sounds like an internal NY Times matter. I'm not terribly interested in the office politics of dysfunctional workplaces.
The endless stories about the NYT on the NYT by NYT writers, commented on by NYT op-eds is tedious. It reminds me of the sheer extent the BBC covers the BBC. Journalists always wildly overestimate the amount of general interest in media stories :bleeding:
It's all very:
(https://external-preview.redd.it/sFNyZCEr2R16RrNLYD6gspGJz64fKYm-tEU_A3EB92s.jpg?auto=webp&s=5ba1f87d00e6b01494a5ce9a62071423fca5dedc)
Honestly I think so much of this is due to the insane way opinion and news sections are run in the US, especially the NYT and the bizarre self-regard the NYT has for itself as the "paper of record". I feel like they should just accept the moment there was space for one authoritative voice (that contains within it all that is respectable) is long past and, in many ways, they're increasingly an American version of the Guardian - the voice of a liberal section of their country - and that's fine.
Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2020, 12:46:03 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2020, 12:39:10 PM
Sounds like an internal NY Times matter. I'm not terribly interested in the office politics of dysfunctional workplaces.
I didn't read all of it, but the snippets I read seem to reflect pretty well on the problem with intellectual discourse among the liberals lately. I'm sure there is a name for it, but I call it differential skepticism: uncritical acceptance of what fits your worldview, and skepticism or even unreasonable skepticism of what doesn't. It's sort of an ideological equivalent of "for my friends everything, for my enemies the law".
Certainly. Just seems weird to me to expect a specific newspaper to fill the role of the press. If I encounter a crappy restaurant I don't return every day waiting for it to get better, I go to other restaurants. Looking for choice and diversity within a specific single organization is asking for disappointment.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 14, 2020, 12:46:48 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2020, 12:39:10 PM
Sounds like an internal NY Times matter. I'm not terribly interested in the office politics of dysfunctional workplaces.
The endless stories about the NYT on the NYT by NYT writers, commented on by NYT op-eds is tedious. It reminds me of the sheer extent the BBC covers the BBC. Journalists always wildly overestimate the amount of general interest in media stories :bleeding:
Yeah, I've lost count of the number of times I've read some journalist airing internal grievances and saying "Why the hell are you telling me this? Talk to your bosses or with HR."
Bari Weiss has a higher profile than your average NYT opinion writer though. She's been an ardent defender of Israel and critique of anti-semitism (in particular on campuses). She was one of the signatories to "the letter" that attracted more than her share of criticism.
There's one line in her article:
"There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge."
Constructive discharge bring to mind a wrongful termination lawsuit. Curious to see if that's where she goes.
That being said I won't worry for Bari Weiss. She should be able to get a job at any number of centre-right publications is she chose to go that route (she identifies herself as centre-left). But with her 176,000 Twitter followers I'm sure she could also go the Patreon route and self-finance her writing that way.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 14, 2020, 12:46:48 PMThe endless stories about the NYT on the NYT by NYT writers, commented on by NYT op-eds is tedious. It reminds me of the sheer extent the BBC covers the BBC. Journalists always wildly overestimate the amount of general interest in media stories :bleeding:
It's kind of like the shenanigans at the Muppet Show. Or the high stakes for-TV drama between management and wrestlers in the WWE.
Quote from: Syt on July 14, 2020, 01:06:55 PMOr the high stakes for-TV drama between management and wrestlers in the WWE.
I like this analogy and may steal it.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2020, 11:57:49 AM
Quote from: viper37 on July 13, 2020, 05:50:38 PM
And in the process, you lose your reputation, your friends, your carreer, your sources of income.
I'd prefer to be dead.
Then don't complain about left-wing activists using violence.
They're French speaking, so they were obviously racists, and I guess that justify this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwmnhIH6fS0
And another bunch of peace minded folks:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e45rBsiASao
The guy speaking describe how he was attacked by 3 antifas who asked him to identify himself and try to steal his wallet, most likely because they wanted to know where he lived so they could keep on harrassing him.
What's the difference between this and the police beating journalists or attacking people on their porch? In one case, no one will defend the cops. In the other, everyone rushes to defend the other scumbags.
There are hundreds of videos like this, just for Quebec.
Contrary to many on the left, I do not believe violence, verbal or physical, to be a solution to perceived problems.
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2020, 12:39:10 PM
Sounds like an internal NY Times matter. I'm not terribly interested in the office politics of dysfunctional workplaces.
QuoteBut the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn't a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.
No, it ain't specific to the NYT. Remove the part about "understanding other Americans" and we'll see the same in Canada. Just read Oex's comment the other day about right wing party willingly attracting racists. Facts do not matter anymore, it's what you perceive as facts that matters.
It's not better thant the
alternative facts bullshit of the Trumpists.
Quote from: Syt on July 14, 2020, 01:06:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 14, 2020, 12:46:48 PMThe endless stories about the NYT on the NYT by NYT writers, commented on by NYT op-eds is tedious. It reminds me of the sheer extent the BBC covers the BBC. Journalists always wildly overestimate the amount of general interest in media stories :bleeding:
It's kind of like the shenanigans at the Muppet Show. Or the high stakes for-TV drama between management and wrestlers in the WWE.
Presumably though the New York Times has slightly greater influence over public opinion and elite opinion-making than the WWE.
Given the fact that the New York Times is the most famous and influential newspaper among educated Americans, if not the world, I find its ongoing internal civil war to be interesting, and of rather high stakes if one is interested in the quality and objectivity of American media.
Quote from: Camerus on July 14, 2020, 03:57:02 PM
Given the fact that the New York Times is the most famous and influential newspaper among educated Americans, if not the world, I find its ongoing internal civil war to be interesting, and of rather high stakes if one is interested in the quality and objectivity of American media.
Except that the reality is that it really is just an commentariat spat and not a fight over the soul of American media. Bari Weiss is not the great victimized crusader of truth, justice and objectivity going down fighting nobly against the dastardly Legions of Woke. She is an op ed scribbler who sometimes makes good or interesting points and sometimes engages in the same BS as her detractors. I.e. no different from anyone else in the biz
Exhibit 1 is her retweet and comment from 2 days ago:
https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1281642849340141569
QuoteBari Weiss
@bariweiss
This essay by @benj_kerstein is brilliant and true.
And what is Mr. Kersteins' brilliant and true essay that earns Weiss' high praises? It's a slam job on another commentator (Peter Beinart), who happens to be Jewish and recently advocated a one-state solution to the I-P conflict.
Is. Kersteins' brilliant and true essay based on a rigoruously objective analysis of Beinart's argument? No it doesn't even discuss the substance of the argument.
Rather, he argues:
1) Beinart is a self hating Jew whose rejection of the traditional Zionist viewpoint makes him a racist.
2) Beinart's parents were well to do and he attended good schools, thus invalidating his viewpoint.
I.e. it accuses him of racism for not agreeing with Kerstein's viewpoint and then proceeds to pure ad hom based on his "privilege". It is like a Switftian parody of what conservatives criticize about "cancel culture", except it isn't. It is in earnest and totally oblivious of its obvious hyprocrisy
And this is what Bari Weiss urges her followers to read as "brilliant and true" just days after signing the Harper's letter claiming that "The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away."
Fact is Weiss has her side and when it suits her she endorses the same tactics she deplores in others
Quote from: Camerus on July 14, 2020, 03:57:02 PM
Presumably though the New York Times has slightly greater influence over public opinion and elite opinion-making than the WWE.
Given the fact that the New York Times is the most famous and influential newspaper among educated Americans, if not the world, I find its ongoing internal civil war to be interesting, and of rather high stakes if one is interested in the quality and objectivity of American media.
I think my point is that a lot of it is because the NYT perceives itself as something that it isn't and that it's impossible to be. We don't have these involved stories about say the Washington Post, LA Times or any other prominent American news organisations because they don't have the level of self-regard that the NYT does.
I think the NYT still sees itself or sees its role as in effect curating the American public sphere - I think that's unique to the NYT and I think it's impossible. The public sphere it's trying to curate does not exist anymore. It's one of the points I always find slightly weird about the criticism of newspapers. There is no obligation on newspapers or TV stations or any other business to offend the sensibilities of their readers/users (and normally conservatives have understood this - see the various controversies over art that offends certain values). I think this would happen less if the NYT was trying to curate a public sphere and opinion section of its readers (and pushing them/challenging them within that sphere) as other American newspapers do but also as, say, the UK broadsheets do as well - Guardian, Telegraph and Times all do this to greater or lesser degree.
That's why I think the best comparison is with the BBC in terms of both the sort-of self-reflective stories. I think it stems from a similar view of their own responsibility as a news organisation and place in the nation, the slight difference is I don't know that the NYT has ever actually occupied the place it thinks it has.
I thought one state was the conservative position?
Quote from: viper37 on July 14, 2020, 03:37:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2020, 11:57:49 AM
Quote from: viper37 on July 13, 2020, 05:50:38 PM
And in the process, you lose your reputation, your friends, your carreer, your sources of income.
I'd prefer to be dead.
Then don't complain about left-wing activists using violence.
They're French speaking, so they were obviously racists, and I guess that justify this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwmnhIH6fS0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwmnhIH6fS0)
And another bunch of peace minded folks:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e45rBsiASao
The guy speaking describe how he was attacked by 3 antifas who asked him to identify himself and try to steal his wallet, most likely because they wanted to know where he lived so they could keep on harrassing him.
What's the difference between this and the police beating journalists or attacking people on their porch? In one case, no one will defend the cops. In the other, everyone rushes to defend the other scumbags.
There are hundreds of videos like this, just for Quebec.
Contrary to many on the left, I do not believe violence, verbal or physical, to be a solution to perceived problems.
But, it wasn't cancel culture. Cancel Culture worse than death. So you should be happy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2020, 04:21:16 PM
I.e. it accuses him of racism for not agreeing with Kerstein's viewpoint and then proceeds to pure ad hom based on his "privilege". It is like a Switftian parody of what conservatives criticize about "cancel culture", except it isn't. It is in earnest and totally oblivious of its obvious hyprocrisy
And this is what Bari Weiss urges her followers to read as "brilliant and true" just days after signing the Harper's letter claiming that "The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away."
Fact is Weiss has her side and when it suits her she endorses the same tactics she deplores in others
I skimmed through Kerstein's article. While it is very clearly an
ad hominem attack on Beinart, but that is not what the talk about "cancel culture" is about. At no point did Weiss or Kerstein demand that Beinart be fired, or suffer other such consequences.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2020, 04:51:23 PM
I skimmed through Kerstein's article. While it is very clearly an ad hominem attack on Beinart, but that is not what the talk about "cancel culture" is about. At no point did Weiss or Kerstein demand that Beinart be fired, or suffer other such consequences.
It is saying that he doesn't have the right to speak on the subject because of who he is. It's a variant on the illiberal theme.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2020, 04:21:16 PM
Quote from: Camerus on July 14, 2020, 03:57:02 PM
Given the fact that the New York Times is the most famous and influential newspaper among educated Americans, if not the world, I find its ongoing internal civil war to be interesting, and of rather high stakes if one is interested in the quality and objectivity of American media.
Except that the reality is that it really is just an commentariat spat and not a fight over the soul of American media. Bari Weiss is not the great victimized crusader of truth, justice and objectivity going down fighting nobly against the dastardly Legions of Woke. She is an op ed scribbler who sometimes makes good or interesting points and sometimes engages in the same BS as her detractors. I.e. no different from anyone else in the biz
Exhibit 1 is her retweet and comment from 2 days ago:
https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1281642849340141569
QuoteBari Weiss
@bariweiss
This essay by @benj_kerstein is brilliant and true.
And what is Mr. Kersteins' brilliant and true essay that earns Weiss' high praises? It's a slam job on another commentator (Peter Beinart), who happens to be Jewish and recently advocated a one-state solution to the I-P conflict.
Is. Kersteins' brilliant and true essay based on a rigoruously objective analysis of Beinart's argument? No it doesn't even discuss the substance of the argument.
Rather, he argues:
1) Beinart is a self hating Jew whose rejection of the traditional Zionist viewpoint makes him a racist.
2) Beinart's parents were well to do and he attended good schools, thus invalidating his viewpoint.
I.e. it accuses him of racism for not agreeing with Kerstein's viewpoint and then proceeds to pure ad hom based on his "privilege". It is like a Switftian parody of what conservatives criticize about "cancel culture", except it isn't. It is in earnest and totally oblivious of its obvious hyprocrisy
And this is what Bari Weiss urges her followers to read as "brilliant and true" just days after signing the Harper's letter claiming that "The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away."
Fact is Weiss has her side and when it suits her she endorses the same tactics she deplores in others
This doesn't make things better, it just illustrates the larger problem - that
all sides increasingly use the same tactics. It's a general dumbing-down of discourse, fuelled by the ubiquity of social media.
The medium may not be the message, but it surely influences the content of messages. These days it is all too easy to mobilize millions of followers with emotive one-sided screeds. They don't have to be clever or insightful - only memorable, even if memorably dumb and cruel (your president's speciality). Bullying opponents works better than convincing them, and is certainly easier to accomplish in a Twitter. Bullying is of course more effective if it goes beyond mere words, to calls for action against hated targets - again, the use of social media makes this more effective (a single letter calling for a firing lacks the impact of hundreds of easily produced social media posts - and it is of course far easier and more anonymous to post than to write letters).
I know this sort of thing has always existed, but I do think there has been a change wrought by technology. An intensification, a polarization in which the extremes are favoured.
The problem we are seeing is that a culture of shaming apparently favours the shameless.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 14, 2020, 04:49:31 PM
I thought one state was the conservative position?
And I've not often seen right-wing writers claim that there are such things as "collective rights." That's just one step away from racial reparations.
Quote from: viper37 on July 12, 2020, 10:24:36 AM
I think the left is going too far and it will be no better than under Trump's boot.
I fully agree that cancel culture sucks and is a big problem on the left but it is not like the right doesn't also do it. It is one big shit sandwich served up to all.
I'm sure the right would do it if they had the power, but it just so happens that the left has much better ties to the big corporations' virtue signalling departments.
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2020, 02:25:57 PM
I'm sure the right would do it if they had the power, but it just so happens that the left has much better ties to the big corporations' virtue signalling departments.
Yep. It wasn't always that way though and they still try to do their boycott stuff.
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2020, 02:25:57 PM
I'm sure the right would do it if they had the power, but it just so happens that the left has much better ties to the big corporations' virtue signalling departments.
There is no "would" they already do it. Example: Sam Seder.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2020, 02:35:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2020, 02:25:57 PM
I'm sure the right would do it if they had the power, but it just so happens that the left has much better ties to the big corporations' virtue signalling departments.
There is no "would" they already do it. Example: Sam Seder.
The most dramatic destruction of a career I have ever seen was the Dixie Chicks by right wingers. That was insane just because it occured so suddenly at the height of their stardom. But, granted, pre-twitter.
Quote from: viper37 on July 13, 2020, 05:50:38 PM
Quote from: Tyr on July 13, 2020, 02:52:45 AM
The far right doesn't like what they're saying they murder you.
Rarely so, because they are usually watched carefully by authorities.
Quote
The far left doesn't like what you're saying they are mean to you on twitter and boycott what you're selling.
And in the process, you lose your reputation, your friends, your carreer, your sources of income.
I'd prefer to be dead.
Say you have some awful beliefs and spread them publically. You go too far with one and bring down a twitter storm on you, lose your job, etc....
And then you say sorry. Admit you were wrong. Rebuild your life. It may take a while for everyone to get the memo but the left will leave you alone. You will be allowed back into society.
On the other hand if you're transgender or the like then even shutting up about politics won't save you. Your very existence is the problem.
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2020, 02:38:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2020, 02:35:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2020, 02:25:57 PM
I'm sure the right would do it if they had the power, but it just so happens that the left has much better ties to the big corporations' virtue signalling departments.
There is no "would" they already do it. Example: Sam Seder.
The most dramatic destruction of a career I have ever seen was the Dixie Chicks by right wingers. That was insane just because it occured so suddenly at the height of their stardom. But, granted, pre-twitter.
Or more recently, Colin Kaepernick.
NFL careers are usually short and owners/managers focused on winning above politics. I'm inclined to believe he doesn't have the goods anymore.
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2020, 02:38:35 PM
The most dramatic destruction of a career I have ever seen was the Dixie Chicks by right wingers. That was insane just because it occured so suddenly at the height of their stardom. But, granted, pre-twitter.
I mean lots of conservatives were disappointed in the last month because the Supreme Court said you couldn't just fire people because they're gay.
QuoteNFL careers are usually short and owners/managers focused on winning above politics. I'm inclined to believe he doesn't have the goods anymore.
And hasn't for any of the last 4-5 years?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 16, 2020, 03:59:52 PM
NFL careers are usually short and owners/managers focused on winning above politics. I'm inclined to believe he doesn't have the goods anymore.
Yeah but that happened in 2016. He would have been on a roster for a few years after 2016 if he hadn't done what he did.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 16, 2020, 03:59:52 PM
NFL careers are usually short and owners/managers focused on winning above politics. I'm inclined to believe he doesn't have the goods anymore.
Top tier QBs can last longer if they can avoid critical injuries.
Colin is/was not a top tier QB. He had a great Super Bowl season then kind of crapped out.
Yeah, but that kind of QB can/should last another decade
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2020, 02:38:35 PM
The most dramatic destruction of a career I have ever seen was the Dixie Chicks by right wingers. That was insane just because it occured so suddenly at the height of their stardom. But, granted, pre-twitter.
The Dixie Chicks thing was an own goal by the right; the Chicks came out of that attack better-off than they were when they went in (
Taking the Long Way won five of five Grammys, including best song, record, and album). They gained way more rock-n-roll/pop fans and airtime than they lost country fans and airtime.
Quote from: PDH on July 16, 2020, 07:54:29 PM
Yeah, but that kind of QB can/should last another decade
Well, he lasted for several years after 2012, even though he never again averaged even 8 ypa. He probably should have had another couple of years post-2016 as a journeyman/backup QB, but he was almost certainly done as a starter.
In Kaepernick's final season he wasn't top 10 but he was definitely top 20. In a 32 team league with starters like Blake Bortles and Trevor Siemian he should have had a job in 2017.
In his place, the 49ers started such standouts as CJ Beatherd, Brian Hoyer, and Nick Mullins.
And yes Garoppolo put up some good numbers if you ignore his consistently higher INT rates and the huge difference in rushing yards and Y/A.
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2020, 02:25:57 PM
I'm sure the right would do it if they had the power, but it just so happens that the left has much better ties to the big corporations' virtue signalling departments.
All those radical leftists controlling huge corporations...
Quote from: Solmyr on July 17, 2020, 01:03:50 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2020, 02:25:57 PM
I'm sure the right would do it if they had the power, but it just so happens that the left has much better ties to the big corporations' virtue signalling departments.
All those radical leftists controlling huge corporations...
They don't control the huge corporations, but they control the narrative that huge corporations don't want to go against. Even huge corporations know that they're vulnerable to Twitter mobs, so they buy indulgences with token gestures.
Firing an employee being cancelled is one of the easier token gestures, it costs even less than releasing "IG Farben has always been a strong supporter of diversity and inclusion" statements from the PR department.
I don't think I agree with that framing of the issue. You know, I think there's been a generational shift on issues around race and LGBT rights. The companies that seem to go furthest on this (and also the environment) are ones that are either chasing the 18-35 demographic for sales or need to hire the best and brightest of that generation as part of grad recruitment.
There is nothing irrational about trying to show that your values are aligned with your consumers or people you're trying to attract to come work for you . In fact I think there's loads of research that people are stickier when they perceive a company as aligned with them on values/identity rather than price or quality - and there's nothing new about this, see previous generations "aspirational" brands or the way John Lewis positions itself.
Added to that is that I think statements etc are lower cost than actually doing something. So investment banks might not divest from fossil fuels, but they have a very impactful tweet lined up for Earth Day. Similarly companies might not look at their hiring practices but they can issue a statement supporting diversity etc.
Basically I think it's a lot more rational and cold-eyed than you do :P
We're having this argument because journalism and editorialization are natural enemies that are being pushed through the same channels. Most of what I'm seeing is journalists complaining that editorials should be protected to the same degree that objective journalism is, but the ones complaining about "cancel culture" are completely glossing over how far they themselves have slipped from presenting unadorned facts to presenting an editorial agenda.
They're (mostly) not getting cancelled to hide inconvenient facts, they're (again, mostly) getting cancelled because they're cherrypicking arguments to advance their own causes to a repugnant degree.
The Bari Weiss letter is a great example- complaints about "being forced to advance progressive causes," suggesting extreme progressivism is clouding editorial judgments while trying to paint extreme conservatism as just strawman arguments used to silence moderates. As much as she's complaining about self-censorship, it sounds an awful lot like she's trying to tailor her own language to paint her positions as more moderate than they really are.
Maybe if you don't want your arguments to be given the public axe, you should start basing them in good faith.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 17, 2020, 09:02:30 AM
I don't think I agree with that framing of the issue. You know, I think there's been a generational shift on issues around race and LGBT rights. The companies that seem to go furthest on this (and also the environment) are ones that are either chasing the 18-35 demographic for sales or need to hire the best and brightest of that generation as part of grad recruitment.
There is nothing irrational about trying to show that your values are aligned with your consumers or people you're trying to attract to come work for you . In fact I think there's loads of research that people are stickier when they perceive a company as aligned with them on values/identity rather than price or quality - and there's nothing new about this, see previous generations "aspirational" brands or the way John Lewis positions itself.
Added to that is that I think statements etc are lower cost than actually doing something. So investment banks might not divest from fossil fuels, but they have a very impactful tweet lined up for Earth Day. Similarly companies might not look at their hiring practices but they can issue a statement supporting diversity etc.
Basically I think it's a lot more rational and cold-eyed than you do :P
I think what some are objecting to is not so much the idea that corporations are trying to attract certain demographics, but their methodology - that is, allowing social media mobs the power to influence them into firing people because they have caused a "controversy". The "cancel" aspect of cancel culture.
This goes hand in hand with a notion that employees are basically disposable, and creates an odd sort of relationship between progressives (who usually have little time for corporate concerns) and corporations - based on neither caring very much about the division between public and private when it comes to individual employees.
Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2020, 12:03:59 PM
I think what some are objecting to is not so much the idea that corporations are trying to attract certain demographics, but their methodology - that is, allowing social media mobs the power to influence them into firing people because they have caused a "controversy". The "cancel" aspect of cancel culture.
Yeah I suppose my point is that I don't think it's social media mobs. I think there is a genuine and significant shift in attitudes in certain demographics about racism and LGBT rights especially - it's not just a social media "mob" or froth.
I think part of this is also reflected in the way that in a lot of cases the pressure comes from within - it's from young employees and visible in the Slack channels, hangouts etc in workplaces. We also know that younger generations are significantly more diverse. So you have a workforce that has very different attitudes around the tolerable edges of racism etc and that is more likely to experience that personally..
My point is this isn't some sort of irrational genuflection to a mob or seeking indulgences - I could be wrong but I'd be willing to bet the level a company demonstrates "woke capitalism" reflects its customer and employee base. It's a rational business decision, even if you don't like it - and as I say part of this is just the targets and the demographic you're appealing to has shifted from the old Moral Majority boycotts.
QuoteThis goes hand in hand with a notion that employees are basically disposable, and creates an odd sort of relationship between progressives (who usually have little time for corporate concerns) and corporations - based on neither caring very much about the division between public and private when it comes to individual employees.
That's fine - the way to address it is legal protections for all employees. If you don't want people fired for nonsense reasons, then get rid of "at will" employment. Otherwise it feels like special pleading.
One of my hesitations with the "fire the offender" part of cancel culture is when look at the question of "what is the ultimate goal?". If the idea is to have a person with objectionable views reconsider those views, do we think that firing them from their job is the best way to go about that? I am not sure that depriving someone of their livelihood is the best way to go about that, and can be argued that it is at least as likely to reinforce their views as it is to have them reconsider.
I can understand that we see it as a form of social ostracization, and/or the best alternative a free society can do (as opposed to jailing someone for offensive views should be repugnant...even if some democracies see it as more and more acceptable). But I fear that it tends to end up being a more of a "I don't like this person, but I cannot kill them, so we'll just exile them to poverty" form of vengeance.
I am not so sure there really are good solutions to this dilemma, without approaching too close to the terrible realms of brainwashing, thought control, or authoritarianism. So perhaps this kind of social/economic ostracization is the best we can manage...with the hope that we do so for more benevolent reasons (that of persuading someone from a repugnant view) than malevolent ones (vengeance-fueled social exile).
I think the solution is to fear cancel culture more than to fear wrongthink. Companies should be boycotted for having spineless managers wrongfully terminate employees, not for employing wrongthinking employees. I don't know how that can be achieved except through mass enlightenment.
Fundamentally I think what's behind the cancel culture is the desire for some people to be bullies, and the need to find socially-acceptable targets for bullying. Sex offenders used to be the favorite punching bag, but Twitter expanded the list of acceptable bullying victims. If we recognize the cancel culture for that it really is, then maybe that would be the first step towards dismantling it.
Out of interest just because I've always had boycotts on the run (some I've inherited for obscure reasons), do you guys never boycott companies? :mellow:
I've been trying to boycott Zoom (because of their recent handling of the Tiananmen protestor meetings)...but official requirements for its use keep popping up. :mad:
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 17, 2020, 12:49:47 PM
Out of interest just because I've always had boycotts on the run (some I've inherited for obscure reasons), do you guys never boycott companies? :mellow:
I have been boycotting Burger King for years. If I'm in a group and the group decides to go to BK I will come along (I don't remember if this has ever happened though), but I never go there on my own initiative.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 17, 2020, 12:49:47 PM
Out of interest just because I've always had boycotts on the run (some I've inherited for obscure reasons), do you guys never boycott companies? :mellow:
I boycott Petro-Canada wherever I can because I thought it was stupid for Canada to have a state-owned oil company. Even though it was partially privatized by 1991, the government still owed a 19% stake, which I still thought it was ridiculous.
Mind you the government sold off the last of its Petro-Canada in 2004 and I still avoid the company as best I can. :mellow:
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2020, 12:47:25 PM
Fundamentally I think what's behind the cancel culture is the desire for some people to be bullies, and the need to find socially-acceptable targets for bullying. Sex offenders used to be the favorite punching bag, but Twitter expanded the list of acceptable bullying victims. If we recognize the cancel culture for that it really is, then maybe that would be the first step towards dismantling it.
I think this is exactly right.
The problem is that well meaning progressives defend the assholes because they happen to be politically aligned, and their targets are usually targets they don't like.
But the *goal* of the mob is to satiate the mob, not achieve anything.
It's like bitching about how looters are screwing up BLM protests. "Don't they know how that looks for their cause!".
The cause of looters is looting. They could not give a shit about the cause.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 17, 2020, 12:49:47 PM
Out of interest just because I've always had boycotts on the run (some I've inherited for obscure reasons), do you guys never boycott companies? :mellow:
Boycott Chick-fil-a. Anti-gay stuff.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 17, 2020, 12:49:47 PM
Out of interest just because I've always had boycotts on the run (some I've inherited for obscure reasons), do you guys never boycott companies? :mellow:
I boycott A LOT.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 17, 2020, 12:49:47 PM
Out of interest just because I've always had boycotts on the run (some I've inherited for obscure reasons), do you guys never boycott companies? :mellow:
I avoid has much as I can the former state-owned companies. Bell, Petro-Canada, Air Canada are the main 3.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2020, 05:54:30 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 17, 2020, 12:49:47 PM
Out of interest just because I've always had boycotts on the run (some I've inherited for obscure reasons), do you guys never boycott companies? :mellow:
Boycott Chick-fil-a. Anti-gay stuff.
Me too, but only on Sunday. :sleep:
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2020, 12:47:25 PM
Companies should be boycotted for having spineless managers wrongfully terminate employees, not for employing wrongthinking employees.
That's not really practical though since most food and necessary consumer goods are made by companies.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 17, 2020, 06:06:11 PM
I avoid has much as I can the former state-owned companies. Bell, Petro-Canada, Air Canada are the main 3.
Bell was never state-owned, afaik.
I boycott any show or movie with Keifer Sutherland or Charlie Sheen in it.
Exception for Lost Boys.
I boycott places for poor service.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2020, 07:35:05 PM
I boycott any show or movie with Keifer Sutherland or Charlie Sheen in it.
Exception for Lost Boys.
Emo vampires good, greedy stockbrokers bad? :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2020, 07:35:05 PM
I boycott any show or movie with Keifer Sutherland or Charlie Sheen in it.
Exception for Lost Boys.
Platoon!?
Major League!?
Wall Street!?
Young Guns!?
Seminal undercover cop biker movie Beyond the Law!?
How can you turn away!?
I boycott Electrolux / Frigidaire since my experience is that they sell junk and would rather spend several hundreds of their own dollars, spite their retailers and customers vs just spending a smaller amount to fix an inconsequential problem.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2020, 04:50:33 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 14, 2020, 03:37:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2020, 11:57:49 AM
Quote from: viper37 on July 13, 2020, 05:50:38 PM
And in the process, you lose your reputation, your friends, your carreer, your sources of income.
I'd prefer to be dead.
Then don't complain about left-wing activists using violence.
They're French speaking, so they were obviously racists, and I guess that justify this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwmnhIH6fS0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwmnhIH6fS0)
And another bunch of peace minded folks:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e45rBsiASao
The guy speaking describe how he was attacked by 3 antifas who asked him to identify himself and try to steal his wallet, most likely because they wanted to know where he lived so they could keep on harrassing him.
What's the difference between this and the police beating journalists or attacking people on their porch? In one case, no one will defend the cops. In the other, everyone rushes to defend the other scumbags.
There are hundreds of videos like this, just for Quebec.
Contrary to many on the left, I do not believe violence, verbal or physical, to be a solution to perceived problems.
But, it wasn't cancel culture. Cancel Culture worse than death. So you should be happy.
Ok, it's nice to know that the next time someone complains about police brutality. If it's ok for the left, it's got to be okay for the police too :)
My bad, sorry for thinking that all human beings deserved to be treated equally with dignity and respect in our societies. :) I should have known it was pointless arguing this with the left.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 17, 2020, 12:49:47 PM
Out of interest just because I've always had boycotts on the run (some I've inherited for obscure reasons), do you guys never boycott companies? :mellow:
I've boycotted EA for a few years after Mass Effect 3. I've boycotted Microsoft, except for Windows, for near 20 years, until I was forced to buy Office. 2010 was my first Office product.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 17, 2020, 06:06:11 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 17, 2020, 12:49:47 PM
Out of interest just because I've always had boycotts on the run (some I've inherited for obscure reasons), do you guys never boycott companies? :mellow:
I avoid has much as I can the former state-owned companies. Bell, Petro-Canada, Air Canada are the main 3.
Bell was never a state-owned company. Videotron, on the other hand, has benefited a lot from dubious state investments that made us lose millions of dollars.
Quote from: PRC on July 17, 2020, 10:43:30 PM
Platoon!?
Major League!?
Wall Street!?
Young Guns!?
Seminal undercover cop biker movie Beyond the Law!?
How can you turn away!?
Overrated.
The good lines are all Gordon's.
Are you shitting me?
Huh?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2020, 07:35:05 PM
I boycott any show or movie with Keifer Sutherland or Charlie Sheen in it.
Exception for Lost Boys.
Do you boycott the companies that made them?
Also just to pick up on the "bully" point. As I say I think there is a generational point on this. Partly that's down to different attitudes to racism - so in the UK there's been polling on attitudes and basically racism especially is something Millenials and Zoomers have zero tolerance for. For them it is never acceptable, while older generations are a bit more forgiving - possibly becase as they grew up it was more common.
But the other point around the culture of this is I think older Millenials are probably the last generation who could say they expect a distinction between their public and private lives as Malthus talk about. If you're born after 1990, you've always had the internet and more or less always had social media. As I say I think Foucault is relevant in this sort of distributed policing of social norms but socially we also created a panopticon and put kids into it where they could be observed at all times for whether they were following norms or not (including anti-racism).
And there's always been a cancel or call out culture on social media, especially during the Tumblr wars a few years back. That existed and, partly in response, to that so did the faux-ironic, racist/homophobic/misogynist trolling. I think both sides of that fight are present it's just Tumblr's in the real world now. It's also probably worth remembering that for all the excitement about the cancel culture side of this - only one side's elected a possibly joking, racist troll to the highest office in the land.
Quote from: Camerus on July 17, 2020, 10:56:54 PM
I boycott Electrolux / Frigidaire since my experience is that they sell junk and would rather spend several hundreds of their own dollars, spite their retailers and customers vs just spending a smaller amount to fix an inconsequential problem.
We bought all Electrolux white goods when we built the house in 2008, every thing has broken down at least once, several of them during guarantee time (the dishwasher twice in the first two years). +1 on that boycott.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 18, 2020, 04:13:30 AM
Also just to pick up on the "bully" point. As I say I think there is a generational point on this. Partly that's down to different attitudes to racism - so in the UK there's been polling on attitudes and basically racism especially is something Millenials and Zoomers have zero tolerance for. For them it is never acceptable, while older generations are a bit more forgiving - possibly becase as they grew up it was more common.
But the other point around the culture of this is I think older Millenials are probably the last generation who could say they expect a distinction between their public and private lives as Malthus talk about. If you're born after 1990, you've always had the internet and more or less always had social media. As I say I think Foucault is relevant in this sort of distributed policing of social norms but socially we also created a panopticon and put kids into it where they could be observed at all times for whether they were following norms or not (including anti-racism).
And there's always been a cancel or call out culture on social media, especially during the Tumblr wars a few years back. That existed and, partly in response, to that so did the faux-ironic, racist/homophobic/misogynist trolling. I think both sides of that fight are present it's just Tumblr's in the real world now. It's also probably worth remembering that for all the excitement about the cancel culture side of this - only one side's elected a possibly joking, racist troll to the highest office in the land.
I think it is a mistake to look on this as a question of "sides".
Both the trolls and the cancellers are products of the same system - the dysfunction that is, if not wrought by social media, certainly enabled and exacerbated by it, in that it creates multiple echo chambers in which extremes are celebrated, nuance is lost, and both shaming and the shameless are rampant — and in which each reinforce the other.
Look at Trump as an example. He loves social media, tweeting more than he communicates in any other manner. He's also completely shameless. His followers draw strength from the excesses of cancel culture, while cancellers draw strength from the excesses of him and his followers.
The people who lose out are those who possess a sense of shame (thus making them vulnerable to online bullying from cancellers for wrongthink) and who want to express ideas that they think will actually improve the world (thus are not Trumpite trolls, who simply want to 'own the libs' no matter that the world burns). It is they who are increasingly likely to conclude speaking out isn't worth it, leaving the media more free for Trumpites and cancel types to dominate discourse.
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2020, 10:24:05 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 18, 2020, 04:13:30 AM
Also just to pick up on the "bully" point. As I say I think there is a generational point on this. Partly that's down to different attitudes to racism - so in the UK there's been polling on attitudes and basically racism especially is something Millenials and Zoomers have zero tolerance for. For them it is never acceptable, while older generations are a bit more forgiving - possibly becase as they grew up it was more common.
But the other point around the culture of this is I think older Millenials are probably the last generation who could say they expect a distinction between their public and private lives as Malthus talk about. If you're born after 1990, you've always had the internet and more or less always had social media. As I say I think Foucault is relevant in this sort of distributed policing of social norms but socially we also created a panopticon and put kids into it where they could be observed at all times for whether they were following norms or not (including anti-racism).
And there's always been a cancel or call out culture on social media, especially during the Tumblr wars a few years back. That existed and, partly in response, to that so did the faux-ironic, racist/homophobic/misogynist trolling. I think both sides of that fight are present it's just Tumblr's in the real world now. It's also probably worth remembering that for all the excitement about the cancel culture side of this - only one side's elected a possibly joking, racist troll to the highest office in the land.
I think it is a mistake to look on this as a question of "sides".
Both the trolls and the cancellers are products of the same system - the dysfunction that is, if not wrought by social media, certainly enabled and exacerbated by it, in that it creates multiple echo chambers in which extremes are celebrated, nuance is lost, and both shaming and the shameless are rampant — and in which each reinforce the other.
Look at Trump as an example. He loves social media, tweeting more than he communicates in any other manner. He's also completely shameless. His followers draw strength from the excesses of cancel culture, while cancellers draw strength from the excesses of him and his followers.
The people who lose out are those who possess a sense of shame (thus making them vulnerable to online bullying from cancellers for wrongthink) and who want to express ideas that they think will actually improve the world (thus are not Trumpite trolls, who simply want to 'own the libs' no matter that the world burns). It is they who are increasingly likely to conclude speaking out isn't worth it, leaving the media more free for Trumpites and cancel types to dominate discourse.
Indeed.
And there's a lot of truth in your last point especially.
Quote from: viper37 on July 18, 2020, 12:10:42 AM
Ok, it's nice to know that the next time someone complains about police brutality. If it's ok for the left, it's got to be okay for the police too :)
My bad, sorry for thinking that all human beings deserved to be treated equally with dignity and respect in our societies. :) I should have known it was pointless arguing this with the left.
You really don't get it. I said you should be okay with it, not that I should be okay with it. If you want to engage with the rest of the class you are going to need to get up to speed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 18, 2020, 01:09:35 AM
Quote from: PRC on July 17, 2020, 10:43:30 PM
Platoon!?
Major League!?
Wall Street!?
Young Guns!?
Seminal undercover cop biker movie Beyond the Law!?
How can you turn away!?
Overrated.
The good lines are all Gordon's.
Are you shitting me?
Huh?
Young Guns 1&2 are great western movies :)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096487/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100994/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Starring Charlie Sheen for #1, Kiefer Sutherland in both.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 18, 2020, 11:57:48 AM
You really don't get it. I said you should be okay with it, not that I should be okay with it. If you want to engage with the rest of the class you are going to need to get up to speed.
Oh, you seem to approve of it just fine.
Regulators, mount up!
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 18, 2020, 04:13:30 AM
Also just to pick up on the "bully" point. As I say I think there is a generational point on this. Partly that's down to different attitudes to racism - so in the UK there's been polling on attitudes and basically racism especially is something Millenials and Zoomers have zero tolerance for. For them it is never acceptable, while older generations are a bit more forgiving - possibly becase as they grew up it was more common.
But the other point around the culture of this is I think older Millenials are probably the last generation who could say they expect a distinction between their public and private lives as Malthus talk about. If you're born after 1990, you've always had the internet and more or less always had social media. As I say I think Foucault is relevant in this sort of distributed policing of social norms but socially we also created a panopticon and put kids into it where they could be observed at all times for whether they were following norms or not (including anti-racism).
And there's always been a cancel or call out culture on social media, especially during the Tumblr wars a few years back. That existed and, partly in response, to that so did the faux-ironic, racist/homophobic/misogynist trolling. I think both sides of that fight are present it's just Tumblr's in the real world now. It's also probably worth remembering that for all the excitement about the cancel culture side of this - only one side's elected a possibly joking, racist troll to the highest office in the land.
I would say that racism is well tolerated in leftwing circles, so long as it's one of them.The big unions in Quebec are (privately) fairly racist and mysogenist. Publicly, they all condemn this, of course.
They collaborate with far left political party that make a point of being feminist and anti-racist.
But they will shut their eyes on what is happening in their backyard. Just like their allies will. As long as the unions will supply manpower and money to help their "cause", everything is fine. A women on a construction site could never dream of being supported by her union in a sexual harrassment case. They just don't care. Women are an embarassement to them, just like migrants, they will drive their wages down since there will no longer be a shortage of workers if they're all admitted.
Were something like that to happen in a right wing movement however...
And it a question of age. I've met younger people just like that, and older men totally fine with the presence of women or immigrants with them.
It's a question of how well your actions are tolerated. So long as the left will shut their eyes on the reprehensible behaviour of their "gang", there will be racism and sexism.
Just like the current Republican party, were racists and sexists find a haven, it's a matter of encouragement. When the top brass don't care, you're given a go. It's like doing some sillyness in a classroom and all the kids are laughing, you're likely to do it again. If everyone calls you and idiot however...
I've seen first hand how racists are treated inside in rightwing parties, and if the left was as "tolerant" as we are toward this kind of behaviour, racism would be a thing of the past in our societies.
the real problem with cancel culture is that it exists.
the real question is how we get rid of it without giving the authoritarian souls engaging in it what they want
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 21, 2020, 01:57:20 PM
the real problem with cancel culture is that it exists.
the real question is how we get rid of it without giving the authoritarian souls engaging in it what they want
The same way we have delt with these kinds of busybodies throughout history.
Quote from: Valmy on July 21, 2020, 02:29:54 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 21, 2020, 01:57:20 PM
the real problem with cancel culture is that it exists.
the real question is how we get rid of it without giving the authoritarian souls engaging in it what they want
The same way we have delt with these kinds of busybodies throughout history.
cultural swing where the other side gets to be busybodies for a while?
Yes...well and generally avoid them as much as possible.
Quote from: viper37 on July 21, 2020, 11:33:27 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 18, 2020, 11:57:48 AM
You really don't get it. I said you should be okay with it, not that I should be okay with it. If you want to engage with the rest of the class you are going to need to get up to speed.
Oh, you seem to approve of it just fine.
Do you have some sort of disability?
So is this the "cancel culture" megathread? If not, I'll declare it so.
The James Webb Space Telescope is due to be launched quite soon after more than a decade in the making. It's capabilities put the Hubble to shame and should do some really ground-breaking work.
It's named after James E Webb, former administrator of NASA during the 1960s space race. I do think that naming things after bureaucrats is kind of lame.
There has been a push to rename the telescope, calling Webb anti-LGBTQ. It was the 1960s, and being gay was grounds to be fired back then. There's no evidence Webb himself had anything to do with it, but he was the man in charge. Activists found at least one NASA employee who was fired on suspicion of being gay during the time Webb was administrator, and it seems likely he would have at least known about the firing.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02678-1
NASA has announced they won't rename the telescope, and of course some are now upset.
This is another example of a tempest in a teapot.
This is why as society we have to be better at actually quantifying the actual number of people the twitter mob represents, and for the most part....fucking ignore them.
There aren't as many as companies think, and they have radically less influence then companies imagine, and the right response most of the time is to ignore them.
This is definitely one of those times.
I do think that many companies make the mistake of getting caught up in the moment of Twitter mobbing, and don't realize that they generally don't have staying power. Tomorrow ruining some other person's life will become the fad that all the cool kids are into.
It was a different time.
(possibly NSFW) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6xJzAYYrX8
Quote from: Barrister on October 14, 2021, 02:01:54 PM
So is this the "cancel culture" megathread? If not, I'll declare it so.
The James Webb Space Telescope is due to be launched quite soon after more than a decade in the making. It's capabilities put the Hubble to shame and should do some really ground-breaking work.
It's named after James E Webb, former administrator of NASA during the 1960s space race. I do think that naming things after bureaucrats is kind of lame.
There has been a push to rename the telescope, calling Webb anti-LGBTQ. It was the 1960s, and being gay was grounds to be fired back then. There's no evidence Webb himself had anything to do with it, but he was the man in charge. Activists found at least one NASA employee who was fired on suspicion of being gay during the time Webb was administrator, and it seems likely he would have at least known about the firing.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02678-1
NASA has announced they won't rename the telescope, and of course some are now upset.
:huh:
Who is being 'cancelled'?
Quote from: garbon on October 14, 2021, 02:56:27 PM
:huh:
Who is being 'cancelled'?
James Webb. Similar to taking down a statue or renaming a building.
NASA employees had to have security clearances, and federal regulations said that being lesbian or gay disqualified one from holding a clearance. That had nothing to do with James Webb.
Webb was known for his efforts to recruit more blacks into the space program (though that may not have been entirely his own idea, given who he worked for). Against that, it should be noted that he didn't pay enough attention to ensuring that the blacks who were recruited had equal promotion opportunities.
Quote from: Berkut on October 14, 2021, 02:04:55 PM
This is another example of a tempest in a teapot.
This is why as society we have to be better at actually quantifying the actual number of people the twitter mob represents, and for the most part....fucking ignore them.
There aren't as many as companies think, and they have radically less influence then companies imagine, and the right response most of the time is to ignore them.
This is definitely one of those times.
Nailed it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/why-latest-campus-cancellation-different/620352/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1aBPV2tVCBdG6NfpQxWUf0EuCZaVXTw83dKPm7oyWQrDB-p-hr10M7OAA
The latest in the ongoing embarassment of cancel culture in higher education.
Summary: Well known climate scientist is invited to give a lecture at MIT about his research, which he accepts.
Twitter mob finds out that he contribute to a Newsweek article in the past arguing against the utility and advisability of affirmative action in admissions and hiring of faculty:
QuoteBack in August, Abbot and a colleague criticized affirmative action and other ways to give candidates for admission or employment a leg up on the basis of their ethnic or racial identity in Newsweek. In their place, Abbot advocated what he calls a Merit, Fairness, and Equality (MFE) framework in which applicants would be "treated as individuals and evaluated through a rigorous and unbiased process based on their merit and qualifications alone." This, Abbot emphasized, would also entail "an end to legacy and athletic admission advantages, which significantly favor white applicants."
QuoteMeanwhile, Abbot's beliefs about affirmative action, right or wrong, are similar to those held by the majority of the American population. According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, for example, 74 percent of Americans believe that, in making hiring decisions, companies and organizations should "only take qualifications into account, even if it results in less diversity"; just 24 percent agreed that they should "also take race and ethnicity into account in order to increase diversity." Similarly, in a 2020 referendum on affirmative action, 57 percent of voters in California—a very liberal state that also happens to be majority minority—voted to uphold a ban on the practice.
So, a professor and noted scholar on climate change was dis-invited to speak because the twitter mob demanded it. Because of course he must be some kind of racist is if is against affirmative action.
The kicker here however is that he wasn't invited to even talk about affirmative action! Climate change has nothing to do with his views on the subject at all, and he was not planning on even bringing the Newsweek article up...because he would be talking about climate change, not affirmative action.
Not that there is any such thing as cancel culture of course.
So MIT is a joke. Good to know.
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2021, 11:38:25 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/why-latest-campus-cancellation-different/620352/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1aBPV2tVCBdG6NfpQxWUf0EuCZaVXTw83dKPm7oyWQrDB-p-hr10M7OAA
The latest in the ongoing embarassment of cancel culture in higher education.
Summary: Well known climate scientist is invited to give a lecture at MIT about his research, which he accepts.
Twitter mob finds out that he contribute to a Newsweek article in the past arguing against the utility and advisability of affirmative action in admissions and hiring of faculty:
QuoteBack in August, Abbot and a colleague criticized affirmative action and other ways to give candidates for admission or employment a leg up on the basis of their ethnic or racial identity in Newsweek. In their place, Abbot advocated what he calls a Merit, Fairness, and Equality (MFE) framework in which applicants would be "treated as individuals and evaluated through a rigorous and unbiased process based on their merit and qualifications alone." This, Abbot emphasized, would also entail "an end to legacy and athletic admission advantages, which significantly favor white applicants."
QuoteMeanwhile, Abbot's beliefs about affirmative action, right or wrong, are similar to those held by the majority of the American population. According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, for example, 74 percent of Americans believe that, in making hiring decisions, companies and organizations should "only take qualifications into account, even if it results in less diversity"; just 24 percent agreed that they should "also take race and ethnicity into account in order to increase diversity." Similarly, in a 2020 referendum on affirmative action, 57 percent of voters in California—a very liberal state that also happens to be majority minority—voted to uphold a ban on the practice.
So, a professor and noted scholar on climate change was dis-invited to speak because the twitter mob demanded it. Because of course he must be some kind of racist is if is against affirmative action.
The kicker here however is that he wasn't invited to even talk about affirmative action! Climate change has nothing to do with his views on the subject at all, and he was not planning on even bringing the Newsweek article up...because he would be talking about climate change, not affirmative action.
Not that there is any such thing as cancel culture of course.
Yep sounds like his ability to participate in society is now over. :mellow:
As long as he has not actually been put in prison or shot, I guess there isn't anything to worry about.
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2021, 11:53:01 AM
Yep sounds like his ability to participate in society is now over. :mellow:
I find your blasé attitude about clear examples of punishing people for wrongthink deeply disturbing.
That sounds dumb yep.
But hardly being executed in the street.
You're looking the wrong way for examples of the dangers of cancel culture.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2021, 11:56:11 AM
I find your blasé attitude about clear examples of punishing people for wrongthink deeply disturbing.
People have always been punished for "wrongthink" in social groups. It is one of the functions of those groups to monitor itself.
The issue is as Berkut has pointed out, that there is a suddenly appearing and not yet understood method of a very small group able to demand quite vocally that their interpretation of correct for a larger group, an that needs to be addressed right now. That is not how societies have worked in the past. Either we are seeing a seismic shift in how social groups function, or this twitter outrage will be understood, internalized, and not long be the flashpoint it is now.
I myself am not a sage, I can't say how this will turn out, but being in the center of it creates a sense of both danger of the unknown, and a wait an see attitude - and those are incongruous enough to make it tough to do.
Society has AIDS. There is not a functioning immune system to deal with disruptive elements.
Quote from: The Brain on October 21, 2021, 12:08:46 PM
Society has AIDS. There is not a functioning immune system to deal with disruptive elements.
That may well be, and it has been so before. In that case there are Times of Troubles ahead as something new is remade or we all go away.
A man couldn't speak once and the world has fallen?
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2021, 12:54:28 PM
A man couldn't speak once and the world has fallen?
:jaron:
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2021, 12:54:28 PM
A man couldn't speak once and the world has fallen?
So now the argument has moved from "there is no such thing as cancel culture" to "there is such a thing, but it's actually fine"?
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2021, 12:54:28 PM
A man couldn't speak once and the world has fallen?
More accurately, many men and women can't speak candidly ever on certain issues if their opinion is not the correct one, because they get to see examples of what happens if they do. Our world as we know it depends on freedom of speech (the concept, not the First Amendment), so it can indeed fall when that's not longer the value we live by.
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2021, 11:38:25 AM
The kicker here however is that he wasn't invited to even talk about affirmative action! Climate change has nothing to do with his views on the subject at all, and he was not planning on even bringing the Newsweek article up...because he would be talking about climate change, not affirmative action.
Not that there is any such thing as cancel culture of course.
So it's not just that the thing he was going to talk about (climate change) was unrelated to his Newsweek article (affirmative action). I don't think anyone would object if a university declined to give a recognition to a noted scientist who was also a vocal holocaust denier.
The problem is that opposition to affirmative action is actually a position held by the majority of people in the US. It is very much a legitimate topic for public debate.
This is one of many examples of a smallish group of university-aligned progressives trying to impose a minority position on the majority through social media pressure.
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2021, 01:06:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2021, 12:54:28 PM
A man couldn't speak once and the world has fallen?
So now the argument has moved from "there is no such thing as cancel culture" to "there is such a thing, but it's actually fine"?
:huh:
A man being disinvited to speak is now a culture?
I thought the complaint was that people were having their lives ruined.
Quote from: Barrister on October 21, 2021, 01:13:57 PM
The problem is that opposition to affirmative action is actually a position held by the majority of people in the US.
I think that's a dangerously narrow definition of the problem. It implies that it's okay to punish someone if their opinion is not held by the majority of people. Just a couple of decades ago, that would get you canceled for advocating for gay marriage.
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2021, 01:17:23 PM
:huh:
A man being disinvited to speak is now a culture?
I thought the complaint was that people were having their lives ruined.
It's almost like there can be multiple ways of muzzling people. :o
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2021, 01:17:23 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2021, 01:06:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2021, 12:54:28 PM
A man couldn't speak once and the world has fallen?
So now the argument has moved from "there is no such thing as cancel culture" to "there is such a thing, but it's actually fine"?
:huh:
A man being disinvited to speak is now a culture?
I thought the complaint was that people were having their lives ruined.
The complaint is rather clear, and has been elucidated several times now.
Having people get their voices canceled because they once said something the twitter mob finds objectionable will stifle the free and open exchange of ideas.
This is a great example, since in this case, it is his views on something that are not even tangentially related to what he was invited to speak about to begin with...
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2021, 01:17:23 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2021, 01:06:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2021, 12:54:28 PM
A man couldn't speak once and the world has fallen?
So now the argument has moved from "there is no such thing as cancel culture" to "there is such a thing, but it's actually fine"?
:huh:
A man being disinvited to speak is now a culture?
I thought the complaint was that people were having their lives ruined.
As a scientist getting denied venues to talk about your research very much can ruin you. bye bye grant money if you can't get your work out there.
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2021, 11:53:01 AM
Yep sounds like his ability to participate in society is now over. :mellow:
No but a bunch of interested people in Cambridge lost their ability to hear him speak on a matter of great public interest. How is that a winning outcome?
My first reaction on reading his Newsweek piece on DEI is that it was naive, unsophisticated, and misleading. But ironically, the reaction at MIT provides support for his argument.
Quote from: Barrister on October 21, 2021, 01:13:57 PM
The problem is that opposition to affirmative action is actually a position held by the majority of people in the US.
I bet you could get highly varying results depending on how you phrased the question.
Just think about what kind of effect this is going to have on other people.
This guy was asked his opinion about affirmative action when it comes to hiring faculty and admitting students into universities. He is no expert on that subject of course, but he likely does have extensive experience as an academic himself.
So he contributes to an article about that.
Now, you may not agree with his views. But you cannot possibly look at them and say "Anyone expressing such views is beyond the pale of acceptability!" The views in question are on an important topic! Is affirmative action working? Should we keep doing it? If so, should it be adjusted or changed? Is there a better way? Are we achieving the goals set out?
These are all very fair questions to ask. But the message here is clear - if you don't give the right answer when asked these questions, your career may very well be compromised, even if in a completely different area!
If you cannot see how this will and has stifled open and honest discussion, then I suspect you actually don't have any respect for the principle and utility of open and honest discussion.
And this is happening, right now. People are most definitely not willing to even engage on these topics anymore, because they know there is nothing but trouble if they do.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 21, 2021, 02:32:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 21, 2021, 01:13:57 PM
The problem is that opposition to affirmative action is actually a position held by the majority of people in the US.
I bet you could get highly varying results depending on how you phrased the question.
Oh, no question. That is such a nuanced position, I bet you could craft reasonable questions that result in radically different results.
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2021, 01:17:23 PM
:huh:
A man being disinvited to speak is now a culture?
I thought the complaint was that people were having their lives ruined.
Is a man using the n* word racism? Or is it more that it happens, more than once?
Your life won't be ruined by some stranger calling you a f* or a n*. Yet, I'm sure you'd prefer to be addressed as "Sir" or "Mister", like most people here. Just like I prefer "Sir" to "Frog". Your life would not be ruined either if you were forbidden from entering a place that refuses to serves black or gay people. Your ancestors were likely denied entry into lots of places, yet they survived. They were prevented from a bunch of things while being freemen & women. Yet their lives weren't ruined. So it's all ok, I guess?
I think you fail to see the big picture here. One man being disinvited is no big deal. Just like one insult randomly thrown at at you wouldn't be a big deal. But it's a symptom of something bigger, as it keeps on happening.
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2021, 02:36:03 PM
Just think about what kind of effect this is going to have on other people.
This guy was asked his opinion about affirmative action when it comes to hiring faculty and admitting students into universities. He is no expert on that subject of course, but he likely does have extensive experience as an academic himself.
So he contributes to an article about that.
Now, you may not agree with his views. But you cannot possibly look at them and say "Anyone expressing such views is beyond the pale of acceptability!" The views in question are on an important topic! Is affirmative action working? Should we keep doing it? If so, should it be adjusted or changed? Is there a better way? Are we achieving the goals set out?
These are all very fair questions to ask. But the message here is clear - if you don't give the right answer when asked these questions, your career may very well be compromised, even if in a completely different area!
If you cannot see how this will and has stifled open and honest discussion, then I suspect you actually don't have any respect for the principle and utility of open and honest discussion.
And this is happening, right now. People are most definitely not willing to even engage on these topics anymore, because they know there is nothing but trouble if they do.
There's an example of this being done right now, if you listened to All Things Considered today: a small but very vocal group has taken it upon themselves in a number of western-state counties to cancel any county health board members who support following CDC guidance on masks and vaccination. They harass the meetings, picket the business premises of the doctors involved, etc. Doctors are resigning from health boards because the harassment is too much for them.
But, not a problem, right, garbon? It's not the end of the world, so all is okay, right? No one's life is ruined (if they resign), so no harm and no foul, correct?
The war continues. It's latest victim: a racist rock.
https://news.wisc.edu/no-longer-a-memorial-rock-removed-from-campus/?fbclid=IwAR11qFQzBgiWBxUi2rKmfrLnVcZs7SUb0AkNyTj0DHESbyY6apsBlGdfp-0
If someone told me about this, I would not believe them. It has to be one of those "Lets see how ridiculous a story we can invent!" kind of things.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 01:49:15 PM
The war continues. It's latest victim: a racist rock.
https://news.wisc.edu/no-longer-a-memorial-rock-removed-from-campus/?fbclid=IwAR11qFQzBgiWBxUi2rKmfrLnVcZs7SUb0AkNyTj0DHESbyY6apsBlGdfp-0
If someone told me about this, I would not believe them. It has to be one of those "Lets see how ridiculous a story we can invent!" kind of things.
I do want to point out this happened over the summer, and the article is dated August 6... Because I had heard the story at the time and went - "wait - they're moving another rock?!?"
But yeah. Notice that the rock was referred to by the "deeply offensive nickname that included a racial slur" back in 1925. Not any time more recently.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 01:49:15 PM
The war continues. It's latest victim: a racist rock.
https://news.wisc.edu/no-longer-a-memorial-rock-removed-from-campus/?fbclid=IwAR11qFQzBgiWBxUi2rKmfrLnVcZs7SUb0AkNyTj0DHESbyY6apsBlGdfp-0
If someone told me about this, I would not believe them. It has to be one of those "Lets see how ridiculous a story we can invent!" kind of things.
I don't get what the objections to the rock were, but I guess there's really no need for me to know. Seems like an easy and cheap solution to what seems to have sincerely bothered enough people to motivate the university to move it.
The article doesn't really explain things fully. Was the rock still commonly referred to as the nickname that included a racial slur, or was that just in the 1925 article?
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2021, 02:00:35 PM
The article doesn't really explain things fully. Was the rock still commonly referred to as the nickname that included a racial slur, or was that just in the 1925 article?
Yeah I think if the nickname or similar stuck then I think it makes perfect sense, but that wasn't clear to me from the article.
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2021, 01:59:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 01:49:15 PM
The war continues. It's latest victim: a racist rock.
https://news.wisc.edu/no-longer-a-memorial-rock-removed-from-campus/?fbclid=IwAR11qFQzBgiWBxUi2rKmfrLnVcZs7SUb0AkNyTj0DHESbyY6apsBlGdfp-0
If someone told me about this, I would not believe them. It has to be one of those "Lets see how ridiculous a story we can invent!" kind of things.
I don't get what the objections to the rock were, but I guess there's really no need for me to know. Seems like an easy and cheap solution to what seems to have sincerely bothered enough people to motivate the university to move it.
If you look at the size of the crane, and truck, required to move the rock it appears to me the solution was neither easy or cheap. That would have costs thousands of dollars.
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2021, 02:00:35 PM
The article doesn't really explain things fully. Was the rock still commonly referred to as the nickname that included a racial slur, or was that just in the 1925 article?
I wondered the same thing, so I went to look for the explanation the Chancellor gave - turns out it was a common nickname given by the then prevalent number of KKK members in the community and campus.
I am not sure why one would object to the removal of such an object.
@BB yes. All paid for by private donations to the Chancellor's fund.
I would think that there had be vestiges of that name usage other than one 1925 article as it was at least somewhat known. While a rock itself is likely not offensive (unless rolling downhill toward a defending group of spearmen), informal carrying on of that name could have meant a lingering symbol attached to the rock. Renaming a symbol can work, but often it creates a duel of meanings played out in a far more aggressive manner.
Just a thought.
Let me offer a geologic defence of leaving the rock where it was.
The article calls it a "glacial erratic". So during the last ice age the rock became detached from wherever it started and was carried by the ice hundreds or thousands of kilometres until it was ultimately deposited by the melting ice. So it has geologic and historic significance - but only in the place it was deposited. Otherwise it's just a big hunk of granite.
I doubt there is a lack of big-ass rocks in Wisconsin. The university will survive this dangerous assault of "wokeness".
Just 50k of alumni money misspent.
It sends a message that the university will let KKK define what is good and what is bad. This is hardly unintentional.
QuoteThen Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the rock, and confess over it all the iniquities of the University of Wisconsin, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the rock, and sending it away into the wilderness by means of someone with a giant crane. The rock shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the rock shall be set free in the wilderness
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2021, 02:19:29 PM
Let me offer a geologic defence of leaving the rock where it was.
The article calls it a "glacial erratic". So during the last ice age the rock became detached from wherever it started and was carried by the ice hundreds or thousands of kilometres until it was ultimately deposited by the melting ice. So it has geologic and historic significance - but only in the place it was deposited. Otherwise it's just a big hunk of granite.
The article says it sat on the crest since 1925, which seems to imply that it was moved there at the time (though it doesn't explicitly say so), which would mean it had already moved from its original location. The article does mention it's being moved to what sounds like an appropriate site:
QuoteThe rock has been moved to university-owned land southeast of Madison near Lake Kegonsa. The area is within a glacial till landscape.
The part of Germany I grew up in was partially shaped by Ice Age glaciers, and while erratics are not entirely uncommon in the area, I doubt many remain in their original place.
Total aside. Glacial erratics are common in Sweden. Obviously moving one doesn't matter from any preservation POV. My guess though is that most are in the original locations, if you needed the space it was probably simpler to cut it up.
Addendum: some have Viking Age runic inscriptions. :) The rocks that is.
This site has some notable erratics (or Findlinge, because they were found randomly in the landscape) in Schleswig-Holstein. Based on geological analysis they're mostly from Southern and central Sweden, and overall of not impressive size.
https://strand-und-steine.de/gesteine/findlinge/ezfindlinge/schleswigholstein.htm
The biggest is the Düvelstein (devil's stone) at 180-200 tons, most underground, only 3-4 meters are above ground.
(https://strand-und-steine.de/gesteine/findlinge/ezfindlinge/schleswigholstein/duewelstein/l_duewelstein/l_duewelstein002.jpg)
EDIT: we didn't have many rune stones in our area. :(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedeby_stones
Quotethey're mostly from Southern and central Sweden, and overall of not impressive size.
You too? :weep:
Quote from: Syt on November 17, 2021, 04:13:04 PM
EDIT: we didn't have many rune stones in our area. :(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedeby_stones
Cool. :)
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2021, 01:59:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 01:49:15 PM
The war continues. It's latest victim: a racist rock.
https://news.wisc.edu/no-longer-a-memorial-rock-removed-from-campus/?fbclid=IwAR11qFQzBgiWBxUi2rKmfrLnVcZs7SUb0AkNyTj0DHESbyY6apsBlGdfp-0
If someone told me about this, I would not believe them. It has to be one of those "Lets see how ridiculous a story we can invent!" kind of things.
I don't get what the objections to the rock were, but I guess there's really no need for me to know. Seems like an easy and cheap solution to what seems to have sincerely bothered enough people to motivate the university to move it.
I am skeptical of how "sincere" the objection to a racist rock might be, but I get that the adminstration would rather spend $50k to just move it then deal with being seen as insufficiently sensitive to the outrage of rock racism.
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2021, 04:16:25 PM
Quotethey're mostly from Southern and central Sweden, and overall of not impressive size.
You too? :weep:
:hug:
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 04:24:00 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2021, 01:59:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 01:49:15 PM
The war continues. It's latest victim: a racist rock.
https://news.wisc.edu/no-longer-a-memorial-rock-removed-from-campus/?fbclid=IwAR11qFQzBgiWBxUi2rKmfrLnVcZs7SUb0AkNyTj0DHESbyY6apsBlGdfp-0
If someone told me about this, I would not believe them. It has to be one of those "Lets see how ridiculous a story we can invent!" kind of things.
I don't get what the objections to the rock were, but I guess there's really no need for me to know. Seems like an easy and cheap solution to what seems to have sincerely bothered enough people to motivate the university to move it.
I am skeptical of how "sincere" the objection to a racist rock might be, but I get that the adminstration would rather spend $50k to just move it then deal with being seen as insufficiently sensitive to the outrage of rock racism.
You seem to know a lot about this, since you are being judgmental about the people complaining. What facts led you to be "skeptical of how "sincere" the objection" was? Note that I am ignoring your absurd troll that the rock itself was racist.
Based on this:
QuoteThe University of Wisconsin–Madison moved the former Chamberlin Rock, an object that had become a painful symbol of racism to generations of students, to a site off the main campus on August 6.
The rock had sat at the crest of Observatory Hill since 1925. That same year, it was referred to in a newspaper headline by a deeply offensive nickname that included a racial slur. The derogatory nickname was commonly used at the time to refer to any large, dark rock.
... I assume the rock was called something like N-word Rock . If that was the case, I expect the objections were fairly sincere.
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2021, 05:03:57 PM
Based on this:
QuoteThe University of Wisconsin–Madison moved the former Chamberlin Rock, an object that had become a painful symbol of racism to generations of students, to a site off the main campus on August 6.
The rock had sat at the crest of Observatory Hill since 1925. That same year, it was referred to in a newspaper headline by a deeply offensive nickname that included a racial slur. The derogatory nickname was commonly used at the time to refer to any large, dark rock.
... I assume the rock was called something like N-word Rock . If that was the case, I expect the objections were fairly sincere.
Do you think the rock has been slur-free for 96 years? Or do you think the nickname was used after 1925?
The anti woke cult may knee jerk like "omg all this fuss about a rock!" but conversely...its just a rock and it seems to have some recent history behind it offending some people. So Meh. Move it. Seems to be a solution that keeps all sensible people, the majority, happy.
Certainly moving a rock is a lot easier then actually addressing actual racism.
If the rock was STILL being called that, then the problem is not the rock, it is the people using that kind of language.
Moving the rock is a clear band-aid.
But there could be more to this - maybe that is being used in that manner all the time, in which case....ok? Although if that were the case, I suspect there would be significant reports of THAT, since that would be a much more serious problem and evoke considerably greater outrage.
But the idea that you are outraged because you found a newspaper article that said that nearly 100 years ago? That is the only actual information we have here. If that is it, then, yes, I am skeptical of the sincerity of any outrage.
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2021, 05:07:53 PM
The anti woke cult may knee jerk like "omg all this fuss about a rock!" but conversely...its just a rock and it seems to have some recent history behind it offending some people. So Meh. Move it. Seems to be a solution that keeps all sensible people, the majority, happy.
I would rather see that $50,000 spent on making college more affordable for low income students, myself.
Or funding some actual research into how to better deliver solutions to those who have suffered from systemic racism.
The real problem with cancel culture is that rocks get moved. :weep:
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 05:12:29 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2021, 05:07:53 PM
The anti woke cult may knee jerk like "omg all this fuss about a rock!" but conversely...its just a rock and it seems to have some recent history behind it offending some people. So Meh. Move it. Seems to be a solution that keeps all sensible people, the majority, happy.
I would rather see that $50,000 spent on making college more affordable for low income students, myself.
Or funding some actual research into how to better deliver solutions to those who have suffered from systemic racism.
This strikes me as the kind of fallacy populists are fond of. Don't spend money on this thing, what about this completely seperate unrelated thing.
Little regard for how budgets work or that this kind of money, though significant to the average pleb like myself in my personal bank account, isn't really all that much for a large organisation to pay for some minor works.
I imagine they probably have a special budget accounted for in their yearly expenditure for campus beautification or some such which is specifically for trivial stuff like moving rocks and planting new flowers.
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2021, 05:07:53 PM
The anti woke cult
Thanks for illustrating how the claim that the woke left attempts to shout down dissenting views by personal attacks is such bullshit.
I don't think anyone on this board is BIPOC and attended the university mentioned.
As such, I struggle to see how one can comment on how a symbol can make them feel, and formulate opinions and commentary on how ridiculous the removal of said symbol might be.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 05:16:42 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2021, 05:07:53 PM
The anti woke cult
Thanks for illustrating how the claim that the woke left attempts to shout down dissenting views by personal attacks is such bullshit.
A cult very much describes how they operate.
You're the one drawing closer to personal attacks calling me "woke".
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 05:12:29 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2021, 05:07:53 PM
The anti woke cult may knee jerk like "omg all this fuss about a rock!" but conversely...its just a rock and it seems to have some recent history behind it offending some people. So Meh. Move it. Seems to be a solution that keeps all sensible people, the majority, happy.
I would rather see that $50,000 spent on making college more affordable for low income students, myself.
Or funding some actual research into how to better deliver solutions to those who have suffered from systemic racism.
I'd like to see the $50,000 spent on making the university a more inviting place for minority students, so that all students benefit from being part of a more diverse student body.
Oh... wait!
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2021, 05:18:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 05:16:42 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2021, 05:07:53 PM
The anti woke cult
Thanks for illustrating how the claim that the woke left attempts to shout down dissenting views by personal attacks is such bullshit.
A cult very much describes how they operate.
You're the one drawing closer to personal attacks calling me "woke".
No, a cult is not at all how people who are concerned about cancel culture and aren't frightened into shutting up about it yet operate.
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2021, 05:21:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 05:12:29 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2021, 05:07:53 PM
The anti woke cult may knee jerk like "omg all this fuss about a rock!" but conversely...its just a rock and it seems to have some recent history behind it offending some people. So Meh. Move it. Seems to be a solution that keeps all sensible people, the majority, happy.
I would rather see that $50,000 spent on making college more affordable for low income students, myself.
Or funding some actual research into how to better deliver solutions to those who have suffered from systemic racism.
I'd like to see the $50,000 spent on making the university a more inviting place for minority students, so that all students benefit from being part of a more diverse student body.
Oh... wait!
I haven't seen anything that suggests that that money is going to accomplish that at all. But you may be less skeptical then me.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 05:23:41 PM
I haven't seen anything that suggests that that money is going to accomplish that at all. But you may be less skeptical then me.
I also might have read the whole article and seen what you didn't see.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 05:21:59 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2021, 05:18:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 05:16:42 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2021, 05:07:53 PM
The anti woke cult
Thanks for illustrating how the claim that the woke left attempts to shout down dissenting views by personal attacks is such bullshit.
A cult very much describes how they operate.
You're the one drawing closer to personal attacks calling me "woke".
No, a cult is not at all how people who are concerned about cancel culture and aren't frightened into shutting up about it yet operate.
To view the world in these terms is very culty.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/14/those-who-use-woke-as-an-insult-forget-the-point-of-a-real-debate
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2021, 05:30:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 05:21:59 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2021, 05:18:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 05:16:42 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2021, 05:07:53 PM
The anti woke cult
Thanks for illustrating how the claim that the woke left attempts to shout down dissenting views by personal attacks is such bullshit.
A cult very much describes how they operate.
You're the one drawing closer to personal attacks calling me "woke".
No, a cult is not at all how people who are concerned about cancel culture and aren't frightened into shutting up about it yet operate.
To view the world in these terms is very culty.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/14/those-who-use-woke-as-an-insult-forget-the-point-of-a-real-debate
I haven't used the term woke as an insult, so I don't see any need to respond to an argument about those who do.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 05:35:41 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2021, 05:30:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 05:21:59 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2021, 05:18:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 05:16:42 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2021, 05:07:53 PM
The anti woke cult
Thanks for illustrating how the claim that the woke left attempts to shout down dissenting views by personal attacks is such bullshit.
A cult very much describes how they operate.
You're the one drawing closer to personal attacks calling me "woke".
No, a cult is not at all how people who are concerned about cancel culture and aren't frightened into shutting up about it yet operate.
To view the world in these terms is very culty.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/14/those-who-use-woke-as-an-insult-forget-the-point-of-a-real-debate
I haven't used the term woke as an insult, so I don't see any need to respond to an argument about those who do.
:lol: x1000
SO let me see if I have this straight.
Tyr uses the term woke as in "the anti woke...".
This is apparently not meant to be an insult, clearly, but a label to which he attaches "anti" to signify those who oppose whatever that label says.
He then references those people as a "cult". This is fine, of course, since he is on the right side of the argument.
I wryly note how amusing it is that he is doing *exactly* the thing the "left" (carefully avoiding using the term woke since I know it triggers you all) claims they never, gosh no, never ever do.
His defense of making a ad hom is that they called him "woke", which apparently is an insult. He apparently did not notice that it was actually HIM who called his half of the argument woke? And of course "but they did it first!" is never really a good defense anyway.
...and then we get to top it off with Zoupa finding it hilarious that I don't use the term as an insult, when I didn't use the term at all, and I don't consider it an insult in any case. Any more then the term "socialist", "conservative", "progressive", or "anarchist" or any other term used to broadly label some particular view is an insult.
He is fine with calling people cultists though. As long as they are the right people, of course. THAT is a-ok.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2021, 02:19:29 PM
Let me offer a geologic defence of leaving the rock where it was.
The article calls it a "glacial erratic". So during the last ice age the rock became detached from wherever it started and was carried by the ice hundreds or thousands of kilometres until it was ultimately deposited by the melting ice. So it has geologic and historic significance - but only in the place it was deposited. Otherwise it's just a big hunk of granite.
The geology profs at the university raised a similar issue - apparently the rock is used for course work there. In order to address that need the rock was moved to another location on campus which is part of the same geological area. You can find the chancellors explanation for all of that with a quick google search.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 05:35:41 PM
I haven't used the term woke as an insult
No not in the last few hours anyway.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2021, 06:14:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 05:35:41 PM
I haven't used the term woke as an insult
No not in the last few hours anyway.
Not ever. Since I don't consider it an insult, and I know better then you what I mean by what I say, no matter how much you wish you and Tyr and Zoupa could define my intent yourselves.
Funny, you have no problem with Tyr using the term "cult" as a clear insult though. It's almost like your objection is entirely based on tribalism and cognitive bias, rather then any actual principle...
You may lack some self awareness on this issue or a failure to recognize your bombastic tone may be regarded as insulting.
You disagree with any ideology because you think the reasoning is flawed or the conclusions unwarranted. Does that mean that calling someone progressive, or a centrist, or a free marketer, or whatever, is also an insult? I don't think so.
I would go so far as to say the reason Squeeze feels being called woke is an insult is because he himself is aware of the shortcomings of wokism. I see people like Squeeze and Zoupa as not being card carrying members but more like fellow travelers: the general principles are great, a lot of stupid stuff is said, but they have to defend the stupid stuff too because it's your team. And they certainly can't say the stupid stuff is stupid.
I think removing the rock is silly for the same reasons Berkut mentioned.
I don't know the specifics of that particular symbol in that particular place.
My point of view is to inherently empathize/put myself in the shoes of people saying "this is fucked up and it shouldn't be here. It makes us feel like shit".
Who am I to say different or mock what they're saying?
While I sympathize with the sentiment, we cannot simply remove America.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2021, 06:31:15 PM
You disagree with any ideology because you think the reasoning is flawed or the conclusions unwarranted. Does that mean that calling someone progressive, or a centrist, or a free marketer, or whatever, is also an insult? I don't think so.
I would go so far as to say the reason Squeeze feels being called woke is an insult is because he himself is aware of the shortcomings of wokism. I see people like Squeeze and Zoupa as not being card carrying members but more like fellow travelers: the general principles are great, a lot of stupid stuff is said, but they have to defend the stupid stuff too because it's your team. And they certainly can't say the stupid stuff is stupid.
I think removing the rock is silly for the same reasons Berkut mentioned.
I don't defend the stupid stuff.
Rather I see it as dumb but ultimately irrelevant. Those people have zero influence in the real world.
What does have a very real and negative impact on the world however, is their opposite number. The reactionary "Anti woke" ideology is being used to great success by the populist right - pretend anything in the vaguest left of centre is absolutely the same as a random raging lunatic on twitter demanding mandatory self flagelafion for white people and castration of cis males and boom, instant outrage to drag regular people over to the hard right.
The goal is to Paint it that the left are the unreasonable ones on the attack (got to claim the victim position. This is vital) and the far right isn't actually that right wing it's just the centre is in a crazy far left place.
Basically I don't think "woke" and "cancel culture" and any of that stuff is good. I find the entire idea its a problem to be one part laughable and one part painful and dangerous.
It's not that I'm playing the same game and merely supporting the other side (there can only be two sides) , a common problem in the world view of those too wrapped up in an ideology. The way I view the world is just fundamentally different. This isn't a game of football, its a rock concert.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2021, 06:31:15 PM
I would go so far as to say the reason Squeeze feels being called woke is an insult is because he himself...
Yeah, probably the reason why Zoupa and Tyr post what they post is because secretly they know that you're right and they're wrong :lol:
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2021, 06:43:02 PM
While I sympathize with the sentiment, we cannot simply remove America.
I once nuked the entire Eastern seaboard in HOI2. Don't tell me what to do.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 17, 2021, 06:54:13 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2021, 06:43:02 PM
While I sympathize with the sentiment, we cannot simply remove America.
I once nuked the entire Eastern seaboard in HOI2. Don't tell me what to do.
I need some tissue.
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2021, 06:44:59 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2021, 06:31:15 PM
You disagree with any ideology because you think the reasoning is flawed or the conclusions unwarranted. Does that mean that calling someone progressive, or a centrist, or a free marketer, or whatever, is also an insult? I don't think so.
I would go so far as to say the reason Squeeze feels being called woke is an insult is because he himself is aware of the shortcomings of wokism. I see people like Squeeze and Zoupa as not being card carrying members but more like fellow travelers: the general principles are great, a lot of stupid stuff is said, but they have to defend the stupid stuff too because it's your team. And they certainly can't say the stupid stuff is stupid.
I think removing the rock is silly for the same reasons Berkut mentioned.
I don't defend the stupid stuff.
Rather I see it as dumb but ultimately irrelevant. Those people have zero influence in the real world.
What does have a very real and negative impact on the world however, is their opposite number. The reactionary "Anti woke" ideology is being used to great success by the populist right - pretend anything in the vaguest left of centre is absolutely the same as a random raging lunatic on twitter demanding mandatory self flagelafion for white people and castration of cis males and boom, instant outrage to drag regular people over to the hard right.
The goal is to Paint it that the left are the unreasonable ones on the attack (got to claim the victim position. This is vital) and the far right isn't actually that right wing it's just the centre is in a crazy far left place.
Basically I don't think "woke" and "cancel culture" and any of that stuff is good. I find the entire idea its a problem to be one part laughable and one part painful and dangerous.
It's not that I'm playing the same game and merely supporting the other side (there can only be two sides) , a common problem in the world view of those too wrapped up in an ideology. The way I view the world is just fundamentally different. This isn't a game of football, its a rock concert.
I don't disagree with any of that, other then the claim that only the far right, and not the far left, is actually relevant or dangerous. I think that is some very careful special pleading.
They most certainly DO have power. There are many, many examples of them exercising that power. They don't have the same kind of power, because their radicalism is of a different kind, or at least the flavor that is in vogue at this particular moment.
I think your argument that the "woke" left can be safely ignored is driven by your need to have an argument against the right's inevitable leveraging of the left craziness. You want them to be powerless so you can safely ignore the debate.
Do you not see, however, that you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing the right of doing?
You say they are trying to label ALL progressive ideas in the same bucket as the most radical leftist ideas, so they can dismiss them as a whole. (That is true, btw, they most definitely do that).
But YOU are doing the *exact same thing*. You are labelling ALL arguments against this "woke left" as the same as right wing arguments against all progressive issues, so you can dismiss all these discussions as the figment of the "anti-woke cult" of the right!
I don't think "woke" and "cancel culture" and any of that stuff is good either. The reason I don't think it is good is that it encourages shutting down conversation, and it is counter productive to actually getting things done. Among other reasons is that it does give bad actors on the right easy ammunition to attack progressives, especially when progressives are completely unwilling to take a stand against their own radicals. It is hard to argue that the radicals are "raging lunatics" and have "zero influence in the real world" when you apparently cannot even mildly chuckle at them getting rocks moved without being called a cultist.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2021, 07:08:35 PM]
I don't disagree with any of that, other then the claim that only the far right, and not the far left, is actually relevant or dangerous. I think that is some very careful special pleading.
They most certainly DO have power. There are many, many examples of them exercising that power. They don't have the same kind of power, because their radicalism is of a different kind, or at least the flavor that is in vogue at this particular moment.
I think your argument that the "woke" left can be safely ignored is driven by your need to have an argument against the right's inevitable leveraging of the left craziness. You want them to be powerless so you can safely ignore the debate.
Do you not see, however, that you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing the right of doing?
You say they are trying to label ALL progressive ideas in the same bucket as the most radical leftist ideas, so they can dismiss them as a whole. (That is true, btw, they most definitely do that).
But YOU are doing the *exact same thing*. You are labelling ALL arguments against this "woke left" as the same as right wing arguments against all progressive issues, so you can dismiss all these discussions as the figment of the "anti-woke cult" of the right!
I don't think "woke" and "cancel culture" and any of that stuff is good either. The reason I don't think it is good is that it encourages shutting down conversation, and it is counter productive to actually getting things done. Among other reasons is that it does give bad actors on the right easy ammunition to attack progressives, especially when progressives are completely unwilling to take a stand against their own radicals. It is hard to argue that the radicals are "raging lunatics" and have "zero influence in the real world" when you apparently cannot even mildly chuckle at them getting rocks moved without being called a cultist.
The far right have a increasingly strong grip on one of americas political parties. In Britain they've really got the ear of the government. Elsewhere too they're pushing forward.
They have a recent record of murdering people and trying to overthrow democracy. They're a danger.
The far left are largely a bunch of people arguing on twitter about whether it's racist to call black people black and other nonsense. Its only a problem because the right have adopted tactics based on identity politics and kicking up culture wars.
Cutting off this feed to the right would be lovely... But it isn't going to happen by joining the war. People are always going to have daft views about everything under the sun. We need to get back to a place where that's all they remain.
Playing the right at their own game is a trap the left keeps falling into. We shouldn't be so stupid. Who cares about this woke stuff - whilst they're whinging about how some students decided they don't want a statue in their dorm anymore how about we instead focus on all that childhood poverty out there?
On this rock it's notable that you brought it up. It's some university spending a pittance in the grand scale to slightly alter its landscaping. How is that news worthy? Even if it was my local University I'd fail to care too much.
Some people pointed out it has some racism around it so they did the sensible thing and moved it to a less prominent place - everyone is happy. It is still there to be seen by those who want to see it and its easy to avoid by those who might be offended. Whatever.
If it was somebody posting out of nowhere about the rock to rant about how bad it is then the problem would be "woke" but that's not what happened here. That's not what happens in most circumstances. More than 9 times out of 10 when I see a story about something like this it's the anti woke cult making a lovely lefty bashing stick out of nothing.
If you want a serious discussion about this stuff then each point should be approached on its own merits rather than clumped into the standard issue culture war sides.
It's rarely as simple as "omg removing statues is erasing history" or "if a guy probably had a slave the statue should go". Each case depends on a lot of things and really its something for local communities to decide for themselves.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 17, 2021, 06:40:04 PM
I don't know the specifics of that particular symbol in that particular place.
My point of view is to inherently empathize/put myself in the shoes of people saying "this is fucked up and it shouldn't be here. It makes us feel like shit".
Who am I to say different or mock what they're saying?
And that is the crux of the debate. Are historically oppressed groups always right in voicing grievances, or can they be wrong?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2021, 08:32:32 PM
And that is the crux of the debate. Are historically oppressed groups always right in voicing grievances, or can they be wrong?
I'm not sure that is what is being debated. Historically oppressed groups are saying the symbols being used now continue an oppression that is ingrained. The group in power has some saying "no they don't."
Quote from: PDH on November 17, 2021, 08:36:48 PM
I'm not sure that is what is being debated. Historically oppressed groups are saying the symbols being used now continue an oppression that is ingrained. The group in power has some saying "no they don't."
That sounds to me a lot like what I just wrote. What distinction are you making?
You brought in right and wrong. I was speaking about how symbols affect groups in the minority differently than groups who make up the majority. Much of the derision of cancel culture is much in the vein of how Berkut phrased it "racist rock" belittling the group who felt impacted by a rock that historically had been called by a racial epithet.
It isn't a question of right and wrong, but of symbols and misunderstanding how they impact groups in the present and historically.
That said, as with any human endeavor, anything can be taken to illogical extremes.
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2021, 05:07:47 PM
Do you think the rock has been slur-free for 96 years? Or do you think the nickname was used after 1925?
https://d1t7dpw65z19lw.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2020/11/20_1112-CPC-MTG-Draft-Minutes.pdf
There does not appear to be any evidence of any offensive words being used in relation to the rock other than the 1925 article.
According to Berkut's article, "The derogatory nickname was commonly used at the time to refer to any large, dark rock". As there are likely many such offending rocks across America, it appears the work is just beginning.
Quote from: PDH on November 17, 2021, 09:30:14 PM
You brought in right and wrong. I was speaking about how symbols affect groups in the minority differently than groups who make up the majority. Much of the derision of cancel culture is much in the vein of how Berkut phrased it "racist rock" belittling the group who felt impacted by a rock that historically had been called by a racial epithet.
It isn't a question of right and wrong, but of symbols and misunderstanding how they impact groups in the present and historically.
That said, as with any human endeavor, anything can be taken to illogical extremes.
That seems like an argument in the debate I framed rather than a separate argument.
I don't get why anyone is up in arms about the fact that some private donors paid to have a rock moved some thousands of feet because the people involved thought that that was a good idea. I am not outraged that I don't know the specifics and therefor feel entitled to be outraged; I just giggle a little bit at those who are so worked up over the movement of a rock they've never seen and never even heard of.
Save the outrage for things that are outrageous. You won't have to wait long.
I don't think outrage is the right word, bemusement is. And it's not really about the toilet seat, I mean about the rock, it's more about the approach to things. What seems to be the case, which is what I think Yi is alluding to, is that claims of being offended are absolute and not subject to any kind of examination. If offense is claimed, then it is legitimate and even the mere thought of examining it for reasonability is just a further offense.
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2021, 10:23:12 PM
I don't get why anyone is up in arms about the fact that some private donors paid to have a rock moved some thousands of feet because the people involved thought that that was a good idea. I am not outraged that I don't know the specifics and therefor feel entitled to be outraged; I just giggle a little bit at those who are so worked up over the movement of a rock they've never seen and never even heard of.
Save the outrage for things that are outrageous. You won't have to wait long.
Did they pay specifically to have the rock moved, or was it a general fund for the University? Article didn't make that clear.
Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2021, 12:07:13 AM
I don't think outrage is the right word, bemusement is. And it's not really about the toilet seat, I mean about the rock, it's more about the approach to things. What seems to be the case, which is what I think Yi is alluding to, is that claims of being offended are absolute and not subject to any kind of examination. If offense is claimed, then it is legitimate and even the mere thought of examining it for reasonability is just a further offense.
What do you mean by an offense being legitimate?
The way you mention "claims of being offended" makes it sound like you believe that the offense is not genuinely felt but rather simulated for various other reasons (presumably political influence and/ or the thrill of exercising power by people who otherwise have little such opportunity). Is that correct? Because I think that's a very hard thing to determine with any degree of objectivity, and any attempts to do so is just - as you say - going to generate further offense.
Or by legitimate do you mean whether a reasonable objective party (however we define that) decides what range of responses are appropriate to the offense, independently of whether it's genuinely felt? I.e. around here, it's broadly agreed that someone's feeling offended because they can't go to the bar unvaccinated generally warrants a shrug, independently of whether it's genuinely felt or performative.
Quote from: Jacob on November 18, 2021, 12:32:57 AM
What do you mean by an offense being legitimate?
The way you mention "claims of being offended" makes it sound like you believe that the offense is not genuinely felt but rather simulated for various other reasons (presumably political influence and/ or the thrill of exercising power by people who otherwise have little such opportunity). Is that correct? Because I think that's a very hard thing to determine with any degree of objectivity, and any attempts to do so is just - as you say - going to generate further offense.
Or by legitimate do you mean whether a reasonable objective party (however we define that) decides what range of responses are appropriate to the offense, independently of whether it's genuinely felt? I.e. around here, it's broadly agreed that someone's feeling offended because they can't go to the bar unvaccinated generally warrants a shrug, independently of whether it's genuinely felt or performative.
You didn't ask me but I'll BUTT RIGHT IN.
It's the same thing everyone means when they say "oh, just lighten up." You're spazzing out over nothing.
There's also a dynamic that I've mentioned before, in that PC/woke culture has set up a system whereby those who express grievance gain status. You can see it plainly in the description of woke in the article crazy canuck linked before. Something along the lines of "awareness of systematic etc etc, of not being blind." In other words, people who express grievance are better than those who do not because they're more aware. Not bamboozled by Teh Man's lies and propaganda.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2021, 01:36:06 AM]
You didn't ask me but I'll BUTT RIGHT IN.
It's the same thing everyone means when they say "oh, just lighten up." You're spazzing out over nothing.
There's also a dynamic that I've mentioned before, in that PC/woke culture has set up a system whereby those who express grievance gain status. You can see it plainly in the description of woke in the article crazy canuck linked before. Something along the lines of "awareness of systematic etc etc, of not being blind." In other words, people who express grievance are better than those who do not because they're more aware. Not bamboozled by Teh Man's lies and propaganda.
There you're referring to the original meaning of woke. Which is pretty alright really and it's perfectly legitimate to see being woke as better than not being woke.
Meanings of words change with time and with different groups however and the way woke is used today, is primarily as an attack line from the right as a general purpose dismissal of things with a whiff of the left ala social justice warrior, political correctness gone mad, virtue signaller, etc...
Expressing any complaint about racism in their eyes automatically makes you woke whether it's saying baa baa black sheep is a racist song and should be banned (many seem to believe the left think this) or stuff that even the right are forced to agree on such as that you shouldn't be routinely calling black people the n word and Asians the p word and so on.
This bit about gaining status for expressing a grievance sounds to me like it's coming from the same place as prager us bizzare take on intersectionality. That you somehow win respect for having the most oppression points. That's not how the left views things.
It's not about giving status to those who have grievances rather its about being open minded to people with experiences other than your own. If a group of black people is saying something is offensive to black people then non black people should probably trust that they know what they're talking about rather than just going "haha no. Woke."
I don't really care that much how the right uses the word. Why should anyone else?
I obviously disagree about grievance and status.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2021, 02:26:49 AM
I don't really care that much how the right uses the word. Why should anyone else?
I obviously disagree about grievance and status.
Because that's the dominant usage of the word in 2021.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2021, 09:36:51 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2021, 05:07:47 PM
Do you think the rock has been slur-free for 96 years? Or do you think the nickname was used after 1925?
https://d1t7dpw65z19lw.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2020/11/20_1112-CPC-MTG-Draft-Minutes.pdf
There does not appear to be any evidence of any offensive words being used in relation to the rock other than the 1925 article.
According to Berkut's article, "The derogatory nickname was commonly used at the time to refer to any large, dark rock". As there are likely many such offending rocks across America, it appears the work is just beginning.
Interesting link.
Quote from: Draft minutesThe rock is a symbol of the injustice students of color face on campus daily.
Seems that the university is a hotbed of racism. That's interesting context.
Quote from: Tyr on November 18, 2021, 03:41:20 AM
Because that's the dominant usage of the word in 2021.
And so what?
Are you warning those of us here who are critiquing wokism that we run the risk of being mistaken for far right nutters?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2021, 04:23:50 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 18, 2021, 03:41:20 AM
Because that's the dominant usage of the word in 2021.
And so what?
Are you warning those of us here who are critiquing wokism that we run the risk of being mistaken for far right nutters?
It's not about criticising or supporting "wokism". Seeing the world in those terms and throwing around the word "woke" is exclusively the domain of the critics who are arguing with a fictional foe.
"Woke" hasn't been much used as a positive term for progressive thinking for a decade. (I blame burger King. Or probably not but that's where I last possibly saw it several years ago. Even then they were likely ironic).
Quote from: Tyr on November 18, 2021, 05:08:15 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2021, 04:23:50 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 18, 2021, 03:41:20 AM
Because that's the dominant usage of the word in 2021.
And so what?
Are you warning those of us here who are critiquing wokism that we run the risk of being mistaken for far right nutters?
It's not about criticising or supporting "wokism". Seeing the world in those terms and throwing around the word "woke" is exclusively the domain of the critics who are arguing with a fictional foe.
"Woke" hasn't been much used as a positive term for progressive thinking for a decade. (I blame burger King. Or probably not but that's where I last possibly saw it several years ago. Even then they were likely ironic).
I think you might be overgeneralizing. I know black Americans who use it as a positive term.
Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2021, 12:07:13 AM
I don't think outrage is the right word, bemusement is. And it's not really about the toilet seat, I mean about the rock, it's more about the approach to things. What seems to be the case, which is what I think Yi is alluding to, is that claims of being offended are absolute and not subject to any kind of examination. If offense is claimed, then it is legitimate and even the mere thought of examining it for reasonability is just a further offense.
Luckily, your argument is a strawman argument and therefor irrelevant. No one is arguing that "claims of being offended are absolute and not subject to any kind of examination."
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 07:01:57 AM
I think you might be overgeneralizing. I know black Americans who use it as a positive term.
Students in my school (not just black students) claim it proudly (often erroneously, perhaps). They are delighted that it makes the far right go nuts.
It's another example of British English vs American English.
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2021, 07:21:30 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2021, 12:07:13 AM
I don't think outrage is the right word, bemusement is. And it's not really about the toilet seat, I mean about the rock, it's more about the approach to things. What seems to be the case, which is what I think Yi is alluding to, is that claims of being offended are absolute and not subject to any kind of examination. If offense is claimed, then it is legitimate and even the mere thought of examining it for reasonability is just a further offense.
Luckily, your argument is a strawman argument and therefor irrelevant. No one is arguing that "claims of being offended are absolute and not subject to any kind of examination."
No, of course no one is arguing that, because when you say it clearly like that, it does sound ridiculous. The problem seems to be that people are acting like this is the case, without putting it openly the way that I did.
Cancel culture gone mad! :( From the statement of the Gas Exporting Countries forum after COP26:
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/GECF__cop26cmp16cma3_HLS.pdf.pdf
QuoteNotwithstanding the ongoing reductionism and cancel culture on hydrocarbons, the GECF aspires to present a balanced energy-transition roadmap for a constructive debate that will enable policymakers to instigate and, perhaps, lead a realistic energy transition.
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 07:01:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 18, 2021, 05:08:15 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2021, 04:23:50 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 18, 2021, 03:41:20 AM
Because that's the dominant usage of the word in 2021.
And so what?
Are you warning those of us here who are critiquing wokism that we run the risk of being mistaken for far right nutters?
It's not about criticising or supporting "wokism". Seeing the world in those terms and throwing around the word "woke" is exclusively the domain of the critics who are arguing with a fictional foe.
"Woke" hasn't been much used as a positive term for progressive thinking for a decade. (I blame burger King. Or probably not but that's where I last possibly saw it several years ago. Even then they were likely ironic).
I think you might be overgeneralizing. I know black Americans who use it as a positive term.
You know black Americans? :yeahright:
:mellow:
He hasn't gone full Madonna, Raz.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2021, 08:25:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 07:01:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 18, 2021, 05:08:15 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2021, 04:23:50 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 18, 2021, 03:41:20 AM
Because that's the dominant usage of the word in 2021.
And so what?
Are you warning those of us here who are critiquing wokism that we run the risk of being mistaken for far right nutters?
It's not about criticising or supporting "wokism". Seeing the world in those terms and throwing around the word "woke" is exclusively the domain of the critics who are arguing with a fictional foe.
"Woke" hasn't been much used as a positive term for progressive thinking for a decade. (I blame burger King. Or probably not but that's where I last possibly saw it several years ago. Even then they were likely ironic).
I think you might be overgeneralizing. I know black Americans who use it as a positive term.
You know black Americans? :yeahright:
Anytime he walks by a mirror :P
I don't know, garbon doesn't strike me as a person who knows himself.
I only know myself in the Biblical sense.
Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2021, 09:29:14 AM
I don't know, garbon doesn't strike me as a person who knows himself.
:huh:
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 09:33:01 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2021, 09:29:14 AM
I don't know, garbon doesn't strike me as a person who knows himself.
:huh:
Well, you did make out with a girl.
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 09:33:01 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2021, 09:29:14 AM
I don't know, garbon doesn't strike me as a person who knows himself.
:huh:
didn't you pretend to to be indian for a while? i mean that might count as a strike against you :D
We are talking about events 15 years old?
Also, who doesn't experiment in college?
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 11:17:04 AM
Also, who doesn't experiment in college?
Probably 80-90% of Languishites.
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 11:16:23 AM
We are talking about events 15 years old?
We're moving a rock that had a bad name used 100 years ago, so why not :D
Quote from: mongers on November 18, 2021, 12:19:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 11:17:04 AM
Also, who doesn't experiment in college?
Probably 80-90% of Languishites.
We don't go to college. We emerge cynical and bitter, skipping the optimistic idealism of college all together.
Quote from: HVC on November 18, 2021, 12:26:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 11:16:23 AM
We are talking about events 15 years old?
We're moving a rock that had a bad name used 100 years ago, so why not :D
No one on languish is moving that rock.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2021, 04:23:50 AM
Are you warning those of us here who are critiquing wokism that we run the risk of being mistaken for far right nutters?
It's been pretty much the case for anyone criticizing left wing antics.
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 11:17:04 AM
Also, who doesn't experiment in college?
Most people here would be fired if they experimented being Indian while in college.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2021, 01:06:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 11:17:04 AM
Also, who doesn't experiment in college?
Most people here would be fired if they experimented being Indian while in college.
And that is cancel culture, and it would be wrong.
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2021, 01:15:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2021, 01:06:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 11:17:04 AM
Also, who doesn't experiment in college?
Most people here would be fired if they experimented being Indian while in college.
And that is cancel culture, and it would be wrong.
And also, maybe, fraud.
I think Dorsey experimented with being black while in college, IIRC.
I think Martinus experimented with being Russian for a while.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2021, 01:06:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 11:17:04 AM
Also, who doesn't experiment in college?
Most people here would be fired if they experimented being Indian while in college.
I'm not sure being mistaken for Indian is really a personal failing.
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 02:00:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2021, 01:06:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 11:17:04 AM
Also, who doesn't experiment in college?
Most people here would be fired if they experimented being Indian while in college.
I'm not sure being mistaken for Indian is really a personal failing.
I've assumed you were Indian for over a decade now, FYI.
Quote from: ulmont on November 18, 2021, 02:17:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 02:00:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2021, 01:06:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 11:17:04 AM
Also, who doesn't experiment in college?
Most people here would be fired if they experimented being Indian while in college.
I'm not sure being mistaken for Indian is really a personal failing.
I've assumed you were Indian for over a decade now, FYI.
Meowtf?
Garbon is Iranian no?
Quote from: Jacob on November 18, 2021, 01:35:13 PM
I think Dorsey experimented with being black while in college, IIRC.
I experimented being sane: It was a failure.
Quote from: Jacob on November 18, 2021, 01:35:13 PM
I think Dorsey experimented with being black while in college, IIRC.
Ken Dorsey experimented with being an NFL caliber QB but that ended quick.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2021, 02:47:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 18, 2021, 01:35:13 PM
I think Dorsey experimented with being black while in college, IIRC.
Ken Dorsey experimented with being an NFL caliber QB but that ended quick.
But he's been aged up since then.
Quote from: Tyr on November 18, 2021, 03:41:20 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2021, 02:26:49 AM
I don't really care that much how the right uses the word. Why should anyone else?
I obviously disagree about grievance and status.
Because that's the dominant usage of the word in 2021.
It is ironic that you feel you have the right to use the word yourself, and have it mean (when you use it) to mean what YOU want it to mean.
But if I or Yi use it, then it doesn't matter what we mean by the word, because the "dominant usage" provision comes into effect, and we have to defend how some other group use it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2021, 02:47:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 18, 2021, 01:35:13 PM
I think Dorsey experimented with being black while in college, IIRC.
Ken Dorsey experimented with being an NFL caliber QB but that ended quick.
Just so we can all feel old...
The Dorsey4Heisman account would have been created in about 2001-2002, when Ken Dorsey was QB for Miami University.
Since then Ken Dorsey (who never won the Heisman, but was a runner up twice) went on to an unremarkable 7 year NFL career, then went on to scout and coach. He's currently the QB coach and "passing game coordinator" for the Buffalo Bills.
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2021, 03:01:32 PM
He's currently the QB coach and "assing game coordinator" for the Buffalo Bills.
I don't want to know neither that game nor what the coordination for it entails. :x
Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2021, 03:04:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2021, 03:01:32 PM
He's currently the QB coach and "assing game coordinator" for the Buffalo Bills.
I don't want to know neither that game nor what the coordination for it entails. :x
:lol:
I'll fix it.
he also ironically played the the CFL for Toronto as a back up
Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2021, 03:04:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2021, 03:01:32 PM
He's currently the QB coach and "assing game coordinator" for the Buffalo Bills.
I don't want to know neither that game nor what the coordination for it entails. :x
Josh Allen is dreamy.
Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2021, 03:04:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2021, 03:01:32 PM
He's currently the QB coach and "assing game coordinator" for the Buffalo Bills.
I don't want to know neither that game nor what the coordination for it entails. :x
^_^
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2021, 12:49:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2021, 04:23:50 AM
Are you warning those of us here who are critiquing wokism that we run the risk of being mistaken for far right nutters?
It's been pretty much the case for anyone criticizing left wing antics.
Ah yes. The old "you just call anyone who disagrees with you a fascist" attack line.
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2021, 02:58:20 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 18, 2021, 03:41:20 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2021, 02:26:49 AM
I don't really care that much how the right uses the word. Why should anyone else?
I obviously disagree about grievance and status.
Because that's the dominant usage of the word in 2021.
It is ironic that you feel you have the right to use the word yourself, and have it mean (when you use it) to mean what YOU want it to mean.
But if I or Yi use it, then it doesn't matter what we mean by the word, because the "dominant usage" provision comes into effect, and we have to defend how some other group use it.
I don't use it. I can't think of any example where I would other than in reference to the anti-woke brigade. It's being used here so obviously I have to repeat it to talk about it. It's not the n word.
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 11:17:04 AM
Also, who doesn't experiment in college?
unless you count drinking to excess, doing drugs and sleeping with more than one gir l as "experimenting", you can make it "most guys". :P
Contrary to popular opinion among gays, most guys don't experiment sex with another guy on campus just to see if they like it.
Quote from: Jacob on November 18, 2021, 01:35:13 PM
I think Dorsey experimented with being black while in college, IIRC.
ah? That was him in Soul Man?
Quote from: ulmont on November 18, 2021, 02:17:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 02:00:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2021, 01:06:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 11:17:04 AM
Also, who doesn't experiment in college?
Most people here would be fired if they experimented being Indian while in college.
I'm not sure being mistaken for Indian is really a personal failing.
I've assumed you were Indian for over a decade now, FYI.
It could be worst. I met in person and didn't realized he was black until much later. :P
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 02:22:02 PM
Quote from: ulmont on November 18, 2021, 02:17:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 02:00:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2021, 01:06:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 11:17:04 AM
Also, who doesn't experiment in college?
Most people here would be fired if they experimented being Indian while in college.
I'm not sure being mistaken for Indian is really a personal failing.
I've assumed you were Indian for over a decade now, FYI.
Meowtf?
I'm sure I saw a post like:
Quote from: The Brain on November 10, 2020, 05:13:46 PM
Quote from: katmai on November 10, 2020, 05:12:53 PM
Has anyone ever met garbon??
He's Indian.
and somehow had missed a post like:
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 07:53:57 PM
I wouldn't have been pretending to be Indian if my mother was Indian.
Quote from: Tyr on November 18, 2021, 05:38:36 PM
Ah yes. The old "you just call anyone who disagrees with you a fascist" attack line.
It's pretty much true, unfortunately. But if we refer to leftist as commies, it's bad.
Look at the treatment BB usually receive for defending conservative values.
I've been called a racist multiple times by CC and Jacob for being anti-Canadian Liberal Party and pro-Conservative party.
Anyone in the Republican party now gets associated with Trump and the very fine people. Ok, bad example this one. They're kinda looking for it. :P
Can garbon not be both Black and Indian? :hmm:
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2021, 07:29:38 PM
I've been called a racist multiple times by CC and Jacob for being anti-Canadian Liberal Party and pro-Conservative party.
No you haven't you dolt.
Quote from: ulmont on November 18, 2021, 07:24:59 PM
and somehow had missed a post like:
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 07:53:57 PM
I wouldn't have been pretending to be Indian if my mother was Indian.
Yes and apparently the more revealing content also passed you by:
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 08:05:44 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 05, 2012, 08:03:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 08:00:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2012, 07:58:13 PM
I don't follow. It was pretty much common knowledge on here that I pretended to be Indian for a little bit.
OK.
Was the hoax revealed by any chance in the comic book, anime, or NHL threads?
IIRC he pretended to be Indian IRL and told us about it on the forum. His only claims to be Indian here were jokes, not a hoax.
Thanks and it wasn't even that shady. Everyone just assumed I was Indian (very odd given my hair) and I simply didn't correct their errors.
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2021, 07:29:38 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 18, 2021, 05:38:36 PM
Ah yes. The old "you just call anyone who disagrees with you a fascist" attack line.
It's pretty much true, unfortunately. But if we refer to leftist as commies, it's bad.
Look at the treatment BB usually receive for defending conservative values.
I've been called a racist multiple times by CC and Jacob for being anti-Canadian Liberal Party and pro-Conservative party.
Anyone in the Republican party now gets associated with Trump and the very fine people. Ok, bad example this one. They're kinda looking for it. :P
It's not true in the slightest. Far far more often than I've ran into someone being called a fascist I've ran into knee jerk right wingers wanting to play the victim and jumping to "you call everyone you don't like a nazi!" or some variation thereof when nobody has actually said that.
Recently a football blog I follow had an article on our fans misbehaving and booing kneeling. The comments were replete with "you just hate everyone with a different opinion!" when.... This wasn't happening at all. Quite the opposite. It was a very specific opinion being singled out.
As to referring to lefties as commies being worse.... The thing there is as an attack its daft and rarely true. Communists are at a 10 men and a dog level in the west. Fascist thinking however is very common these days. Whilst the mainstream left hovers left of centre there is a huge push with the likes of trump towards fascism stripped of branding.
And that's before you even factor in the warped outlook that the ussr was bad because of its left wing economics rather than because it was a brutal authoritarian dictatorship.
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2021, 07:29:38 PM
Look at the treatment BB usually receive for defending conservative values.
I've been called a racist multiple times by CC and Jacob for being anti-Canadian Liberal Party and pro-Conservative party.
I would be very interested in seeing a link to any time anyone has called you a racist in this forum.
BB's treatment is consistent with one who defends positions taken by the conservative wing of the Conservatives.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2021, 12:59:16 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2021, 07:29:38 PM
Look at the treatment BB usually receive for defending conservative values.
I've been called a racist multiple times by CC and Jacob for being anti-Canadian Liberal Party and pro-Conservative party.
I would be very interested in seeing a link to any time anyone has called you a racist in this forum.
BB's treatment is consistent with one who defends positions taken by the conservative wing of the Conservatives.
It's nice to see you admit that you harass people based on the politics they express.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2021, 01:03:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2021, 12:59:16 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2021, 07:29:38 PM
Look at the treatment BB usually receive for defending conservative values.
I've been called a racist multiple times by CC and Jacob for being anti-Canadian Liberal Party and pro-Conservative party.
I would be very interested in seeing a link to any time anyone has called you a racist in this forum.
BB's treatment is consistent with one who defends positions taken by the conservative wing of the Conservatives.
It's nice to see you admit that you harass people based on the politics they express.
Your reading comprehension is as good as Viper's.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2021, 01:06:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2021, 11:17:04 AM
Also, who doesn't experiment in college?
Most people here would be fired if they experimented being Indian while in college.
Untrue, I experimented with being Indian in graduate school and I was awarded a Masters of Science in Electrical Engineering; which was odd since I was in the College of Fine Arts. Even though that crushed my dreams of being a famous puppeteer I decided to make the best of it. My advisor was remarkably understanding; he said it happens a lot more often than you'd think.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2021, 12:59:16 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2021, 07:29:38 PM
Look at the treatment BB usually receive for defending conservative values.
I've been called a racist multiple times by CC and Jacob for being anti-Canadian Liberal Party and pro-Conservative party.
I would be very interested in seeing a link to any time anyone has called you a racist in this forum.
BB's treatment is consistent with one who defends positions taken by the conservative wing of the Conservatives.
Raz has many times.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2021, 01:07:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2021, 01:03:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2021, 12:59:16 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2021, 07:29:38 PM
Look at the treatment BB usually receive for defending conservative values.
I've been called a racist multiple times by CC and Jacob for being anti-Canadian Liberal Party and pro-Conservative party.
I would be very interested in seeing a link to any time anyone has called you a racist in this forum.
BB's treatment is consistent with one who defends positions taken by the conservative wing of the Conservatives.
It's nice to see you admit that you harass people based on the politics they express.
Your reading comprehension is as good as Viper's.
:lmfao: Irony isn't just the opposite of wrinkly.
I've called Viper a racist. Because he is. Quebec separatism is a white nationalist program and Viper himself has compared the cause to that of the Confederacy.
Quote from: chipwich on November 19, 2021, 10:09:55 PM
I've called Viper a racist. Because he is. Quebec separatism is a white nationalist program and Viper himself has compared the cause to that of the Confederacy.
That's cool, but I haven't. Viper just has a weird fantasy in his head where he makes up stuff about me on a semi-regular basis. And that's a bit weird.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2021, 12:59:16 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2021, 07:29:38 PM
Look at the treatment BB usually receive for defending conservative values.
I've been called a racist multiple times by CC and Jacob for being anti-Canadian Liberal Party and pro-Conservative party.
I would be very interested in seeing a link to any time anyone has called you a racist in this forum.
2 elections ago, when Justin became our PM.
Quote from: chipwich on November 19, 2021, 10:09:55 PM
I've called Viper a racist. Because he is. Quebec separatism is a white nationalist program and Viper himself has compared the cause to that of the Confederacy.
[/b]
in the sense that both held democratic vote on their independance, yes.
I've also linked the Confederacy with the US & Texan independance movement from the British Empire and Mexico respectively.
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2021, 05:31:45 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 19, 2021, 10:09:55 PM
I've called Viper a racist. Because he is. Quebec separatism is a white nationalist program and Viper himself has compared the cause to that of the Confederacy.
[/b]
in the sense that both held democratic vote on their independance, yes.
This is at least the third time you have made this claim (That the Confederacy held a democratic vote on its formation). Each time I have refuted it, and each time you ignore that refutation and then go and repeat it again.
Why is that?
Quote from: Jacob on November 20, 2021, 02:49:12 AM
Quote from: chipwich on November 19, 2021, 10:09:55 PM
I've called Viper a racist. Because he is. Quebec separatism is a white nationalist program and Viper himself has compared the cause to that of the Confederacy.
That's cool, but I haven't. Viper just has a weird fantasy in his head where he makes up stuff about me on a semi-regular basis. And that's a bit weird.
I think he has admitted to racism.
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2021, 02:20:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2021, 05:31:45 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 19, 2021, 10:09:55 PM
I've called Viper a racist. Because he is. Quebec separatism is a white nationalist program and Viper himself has compared the cause to that of the Confederacy.
[/b]
in the sense that both held democratic vote on their independance, yes.
This is at least the third time you have made this claim (That the Confederacy held a democratic vote on its formation). Each time I have refuted it, and each time you ignore that refutation and then go and repeat it again.
Why is that?
I don't think viper is racist, I think he's a hardcore separatist and will always side with them regardless of the circumstances.
Unless you are indigenous...
Quote from: HVC on November 21, 2021, 03:12:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2021, 02:20:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2021, 05:31:45 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 19, 2021, 10:09:55 PM
I've called Viper a racist. Because he is. Quebec separatism is a white nationalist program and Viper himself has compared the cause to that of the Confederacy.
[/b]
in the sense that both held democratic vote on their independance, yes.
This is at least the third time you have made this claim (That the Confederacy held a democratic vote on its formation). Each time I have refuted it, and each time you ignore that refutation and then go and repeat it again.
Why is that?
I don't think viper is racist, I think he's a hardcore separatist and will always side with them regardless of the circumstances.
I don't think he is a racist either.
And I don't find his bit about the Confederates being formed democratically that crazy. It's an understandable mistake when you don't think about it TOO much.
But it's been corrected several times now, and he refuses to even acknowledge the argument. Maybe I am wrong, but I think it is a pretty iron-clad argument that you cannot consider a vote "democratic" if it excludes the very people the vote is intended to effect!
Quote from: chipwich on November 19, 2021, 10:09:55 PM
I've called Viper a racist. Because he is. Quebec separatism is a white nationalist program and Viper himself has compared the cause to that of the Confederacy.
We're not white.
:hmm:
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2021, 02:20:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2021, 05:31:45 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 19, 2021, 10:09:55 PM
I've called Viper a racist. Because he is. Quebec separatism is a white nationalist program and Viper himself has compared the cause to that of the Confederacy.
[/b]
in the sense that both held democratic vote on their independance, yes.
This is at least the third time you have made this claim (That the Confederacy held a democratic vote on its formation). Each time I have refuted it, and each time you ignore that refutation and then go and repeat it again.
Why is that?
More democratic than Athens /shrug
Approx 1 in 4 Athenians were slaves vs 1/3 of confederates, including the marginal Missouri and Kentucky. So no.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 21, 2021, 05:29:23 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2021, 02:20:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2021, 05:31:45 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 19, 2021, 10:09:55 PM
I've called Viper a racist. Because he is. Quebec separatism is a white nationalist program and Viper himself has compared the cause to that of the Confederacy.
[/b]
in the sense that both held democratic vote on their independance, yes.
This is at least the third time you have made this claim (That the Confederacy held a democratic vote on its formation). Each time I have refuted it, and each time you ignore that refutation and then go and repeat it again.
Why is that?
More democratic than Athens /shrug
....and if Athens had a vote on slavery, and someone said "See, its fine! They voted democratically for slavery!" I would mock them for calling that "democracy" as well.
And wonder at their actual intellectual and principled position, since it was clearly NOT based on giving one single shit about democracy.
I don't know that he is a racist, but it seem pretty fucking clear he doesn't actually care about "democracy".
The Union wasn't a democracy either, as women didn't have the vote.
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2021, 07:20:03 PM
Approx 1 in 4 Athenians were slaves vs 1/3 of confederates, including the marginal Missouri and Kentucky. So no.
Majority of free men weren't citizens either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2021, 08:32:53 PM
The Union wasn't a democracy either, as women didn't have the vote.
Of course it was a democracy, it just wasn't a very good one.
And if we were having a discussion about womens rights, and you said "See, there was nothing wrong with denying the women the right to vote, after all, that was arrived at democratically by having a vote on it that did not include women!" it would be very fair to say you probably don't actually care much about democracy.
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2021, 07:20:03 PM
Approx 1 in 4 Athenians were slaves vs 1/3 of confederates, including the marginal Missouri and Kentucky. So no.
Hey!
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2021, 09:04:20 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 21, 2021, 07:20:03 PM
Approx 1 in 4 Athenians were slaves vs 1/3 of confederates, including the marginal Missouri and Kentucky. So no.
Hey!
Don't complain, he raised Missouri up to "marginal"
WTF had an episode about comedians who are complaining about being cancelled, and how the complaint isn't new or remotely original. They trace it back to the mid 19th century and how it almost always comes down to the comedian or journalist whining about how they "won't be funny" unless they can rip on the current minority or vulnerable group. It also delves into the fact that actual censorship of comedians in the US now is minimal compared to past laws and restrictions. The largest source of censorship of comedians now is almost completely accepted and hardly ever a source of complaints, the toning down of acts for network late night tv shows.
Canceled Comedy (https://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episode-1278-canceled-comedy-w-kliph-nesteroff-and-david-bianculli)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2021, 08:32:53 PM
The Union wasn't a democracy either, as women didn't have the vote.
The Union didn't secede.
Quote from: HVC on November 21, 2021, 03:12:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2021, 02:20:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2021, 05:31:45 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 19, 2021, 10:09:55 PM
I've called Viper a racist. Because he is. Quebec separatism is a white nationalist program and Viper himself has compared the cause to that of the Confederacy.
[/b]
in the sense that both held democratic vote on their independance, yes.
This is at least the third time you have made this claim (That the Confederacy held a democratic vote on its formation). Each time I have refuted it, and each time you ignore that refutation and then go and repeat it again.
Why is that?
I don't think viper is racist, I think he's a hardcore separatist and will always side with them regardless of the circumstances.
And hardcore federalists, like Jean Chrétien, will always side with Canada, no matter how wrong it is. Like his recent comments on indigenous boarding schools that barely registered in English Canada, and only gain short traction in the news here.
We all have our loyalties.
On cancel culture and the earlier talk of woke being a negative word only used by the anti woke...
BBC News - Don't call young people 'woke', says leading head teacher
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-59347577
It has also been talked about in the French primary of the right where they discussed "wokeisme" as a dangerous imported American far-left ideology infecting the French education system/Republic :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2021, 02:20:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2021, 05:31:45 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 19, 2021, 10:09:55 PM
I've called Viper a racist. Because he is. Quebec separatism is a white nationalist program and Viper himself has compared the cause to that of the Confederacy.
[/b]
in the sense that both held democratic vote on their independance, yes.
This is at least the third time you have made this claim (That the Confederacy held a democratic vote on its formation). Each time I have refuted it, and each time you ignore that refutation and then go and repeat it again.
Why is that?
I never read these comments. Sorry, I do not read 100% of what is written.
It's not as democratic as I would expect of a modern democracy, but for the time, it was as democratic as other States aiming to achieve independence. The legislative assemblies of each States met to decide their future.
Their reasons were flawed, of course, slavery was not worth fighting a war over with. But fighting to keep the States by force inside the Union was equally evil. Just like the Mexicans invading Texas to end their independence bid or Great Britain invading the US instead of negotiating in good faith with their colonies.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2021, 08:43:52 AM
It has also been talked about in the French primary of the right where they discussed "wokeisme" as a dangerous imported American far-left ideology infecting the French education system/Republic :lol:
It is true. It's mostly based on American politics and history and is not grounded in facts elsewhere. Every country has its problems, no need to import the ones of others.
Okay, so what word would you like to be used to collective describe ideas regarded as "woke" by the detractors?
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2021, 09:53:59 AM
Okay, so what word would you like to be used to collective describe ideas regarded as "woke" by the detractors?
As I say in the UK, the Daily Mail's described avocadoes, the Church of England, the BBC, anything that hints at "cancelling Christmas" (I saw this today because a chocolate company has an advent calendar - with a picture of a Christmas tree - but no reference to advent), health and safety, non-alcoholic drinks at a work do, media organisations covering protests and anxiety as "woke".
I don't know that there is a collective description for those ideas, because I don't think there's anything collective about those ideas/things/institutions. In the UK it is used in the same way that "health and safety" or "political correctness gone mad" used to be used.
I think, in the UK, it's more shorthand for a collection of cultural panic: people not doing Remembrance Day properly, the CofE being the CofE, new vegetables, people talking about mental health, Dr Who being a woman etc. It's the latest name for it - as I say there was "political correctness gone mad" in the 90s and 00s, this is just the current iteration.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2021, 10:18:44 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2021, 09:53:59 AM
Okay, so what word would you like to be used to collective describe ideas regarded as "woke" by the detractors?
As I say in the UK, the Daily Mail's described avocadoes, the Church of England, the BBC, anything that hints at "cancelling Christmas" (I saw this today because a chocolate company has an advent calendar - with a picture of a Christmas tree - but no reference to advent), health and safety, non-alcoholic drinks at a work do, media organisations covering protests and anxiety as "woke".
I don't know that there is a collective description for those ideas, because I don't think there's anything collective about those ideas/things/institutions. In the UK it is used in the same way that "health and safety" or "political correctness gone mad" used to be used.
I think, in the UK, it's more shorthand for a collection of cultural panic: people not doing Remembrance Day properly, the CofE being the CofE, new vegetables, people talking about mental health, Dr Who being a woman etc. It's the latest name for it - as I say there was "political correctness gone mad" in the 90s and 00s, this is just the current iteration.
Okay, let's take individual clusters out of this hodge podge. Can we take some cluster out of it and give it a name?
Generally it means being a bit more progressive than the speaker in whatever topic is being looked at.
That's the word. Progressive. As opposed to conservative. With reactionary fuckers on the extreme.
I mean I'd normally just say x activism/activists and tie it to their cause and I'd normally use the phrase they have for themselves if in inverted commas if it's contested. And normally their opponents are also just a different type of activist who can be described similarly.
My general view is describe people as they describe themselves - if it is a point of contention then you can couch it to explain that or use inverted commas.
Yeah, that too. It's funny it's only really with abortion this civility has stuck despite the silliness of "Pro life"
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2021, 08:46:58 AMslavery was not worth fighting a war over with. But fighting to keep the States by force inside the Union was equally evil.
No
This is where you keep going wrong on this issue
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 22, 2021, 08:43:52 AM
It has also been talked about in the French primary of the right where they discussed "wokisme" as a dangerous imported American far-left ideology infecting the French education system/Republic :lol:
Fixed!
I am disappointed they did not choose wokerie instead. Sounds much better in French. :P
Freaking Wokois.
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2021, 08:46:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2021, 02:20:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2021, 05:31:45 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 19, 2021, 10:09:55 PM
I've called Viper a racist. Because he is. Quebec separatism is a white nationalist program and Viper himself has compared the cause to that of the Confederacy.
[/b]
in the sense that both held democratic vote on their independance, yes.
This is at least the third time you have made this claim (That the Confederacy held a democratic vote on its formation). Each time I have refuted it, and each time you ignore that refutation and then go and repeat it again.
Why is that?
I never read these comments. Sorry, I do not read 100% of what is written.
It's not as democratic as I would expect of a modern democracy, but for the time, it was as democratic as other States aiming to achieve independence. The legislative assemblies of each States met to decide their future.
Their reasons were flawed, of course, slavery was not worth fighting a war over with. But fighting to keep the States by force inside the Union was equally evil. Just like the Mexicans invading Texas to end their independence bid or Great Britain invading the US instead of negotiating in good faith with their colonies.
You've ignored the point again.
There was no democratic process to form the Confederacy. It's PURPOSE for forming was to protect slavery, and hence them refusing to let the slaves vote means that there wasn't even "bad" democracy at play.
You might as well claim that New York should secede from the US, because they had a democratic election and it passed. But only Berkut got to vote.
It is not democracy at all if the people who are actually relevant to the question are not allowed to vote on the question.
The "reasons were flawed" is bullshit evasion, and you know it. It has nothing to do with whether the reasons were flawed or not. The reason could be the best possible reasons, but if the vote does not include the people directly impacted by the vote, it is not democracy.
And "fighting to keep the states in the Union" was not even a little bit evil, since the reason the states wanted to leave was so they could make sure to remain undemocratic, rather then acceded to the actual wishes of the actual democratic majority. They seceded, remember, because the majority elected a President they did not like.
You cannot claim to care about democracy while defending the Confederacy for being formed democratically, when they were not, while attacking the Union for fighting to actually defend actual democracy!
Devil's advocate time: when there is a referendum on the ballot for restoring the voting rights of convicted felons, is it democratic?
Quote from: Tyr on November 22, 2021, 10:32:14 AM
Generally it means being a bit more progressive than the speaker in whatever topic is being looked at.
Fucking bullshit Tyr.
That is NOT what it means, and that is not how the people you are actually talking to use it. It's not how I use, it's not how DG uses it, it is not how anyone here uses the term.
I know this is the case, since I am generally more practically progressive then most of you, so how could it be that I mean it to mean more progressive then myself?
Quote
That's the word. Progressive. As opposed to conservative. With reactionary fuckers on the extreme.
No, progressive and woke are not the same thing. This is just a way to avoid defending woke bullshit by pretending that disagreeing with said woke crap is tantamount to disagreeing with the broader progressive agenda.
No, that does not work. As someone who disagrees with what we all know we mean when we talk about "woke" culture, and yet most certainly identifies as being very progressive (and in fact I claim I am MORE progressive then most people who consider themselves part of that ultra-left woke culture) I absolutely reject YOUR definition of what I am talking about.
If you want to come up with some other word then woke, go right ahead. It's just a label. Would you be happier with "reactionary left fuckers on the extreme"?
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2021, 12:50:47 PM
Devil's advocate time: when there is a referendum on the ballot for restoring the voting rights of convicted felons, is it democratic?
That is a tricky one. I would argue that they should get a vote for sure, but I know I am a minority there.
But then, I would also vote to restore their voting rights anyway, since I think it is insane that anyone should ever lose the right to vote. It is, IMO, a fundamental right that cannot and should not ever be taken away.
But I would recognize that voting about voting, of course, is something of a special case.
If we held a vote to lower the voting age to 14, should 14-17 year olds get to vote on it?
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2021, 08:38:48 AM
Quote from: HVC on November 21, 2021, 03:12:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2021, 02:20:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2021, 05:31:45 PM
Quote from: chipwich on November 19, 2021, 10:09:55 PM
I've called Viper a racist. Because he is. Quebec separatism is a white nationalist program and Viper himself has compared the cause to that of the Confederacy.
[/b]
in the sense that both held democratic vote on their independance, yes.
This is at least the third time you have made this claim (That the Confederacy held a democratic vote on its formation). Each time I have refuted it, and each time you ignore that refutation and then go and repeat it again.
Why is that?
I don't think viper is racist, I think he's a hardcore separatist and will always side with them regardless of the circumstances.
And hardcore federalists, like Jean Chrétien, will always side with Canada, no matter how wrong it is. Like his recent comments on indigenous boarding schools that barely registered in English Canada, and only gain short traction in the news here.
We all have our loyalties.
I have to wonder what news sources you have. And how it is you think that indigenous boarding schools "barely registered" in English Canada.
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2021, 12:53:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2021, 12:50:47 PM
Devil's advocate time: when there is a referendum on the ballot for restoring the voting rights of convicted felons, is it democratic?
That is a tricky one. I would argue that they should get a vote for sure, but I know I am a minority there.
But then, I would also vote to restore their voting rights anyway, since I think it is insane that anyone should ever lose the right to vote. It is, IMO, a fundamental right that cannot and should not ever be taken away.
But I would recognize that voting about voting, of course, is something of a special case.
If we held a vote to lower the voting age to 14, should 14-17 year olds get to vote on it?
I agree with all of your post.
Most of the states seceded just on legislative bills, like they were passing an law on school textbooks or something and some of them were very close. Georgia just barely seceded with a tiny majority of the delegates and then didn't even have a referendum, and I have heard even that tiny majority had some irregularities in how it was created. That is about as bullshit of a secession vote as you can find. And sometimes if the vote did not go the way the secessionists wanted they would just have another one a short time later. The secessionists were crushed in the Tennessee referendum but oops that didn't count better have another. Maryland voted down secession three times before the Feds finally put an end to that nonsense.
Whether or not it was "democratic" among white men varies from state to state in the secession crisis. I don't see how you can look at it objectively as some kind of clean democratic mandate across the board.
Quote from: Valmy on November 22, 2021, 01:01:54 PM
Most of the states seceded just on legislative bills, like they were passing an law on school textbooks or something and some of them were very close. Georgia just barely seceded with a tiny majority of the delegates and then didn't even have a referendum, and I have heard even that tiny majority had some irregularities in how it was created. That is about as bullshit of a secession vote as you can find
:yes: And during the war, our Governor effectively seceded from Davis's government while still being part of the CSA. Georgian history during the war is really weird.
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2021, 12:50:47 PM
Devil's advocate time: when there is a referendum on the ballot for restoring the voting rights of convicted felons, is it democratic?
I find the idea of people who have served their sentence absolutely wrong. To my mind that is the purpose of prison - it's to serve your time after which you return to society. There may be some restrictions as part of your probation but I do not think that can include not having the right to vote (or any other political right).
Here there was a controversy because the European Court of Human Rights found that the UK's ban on prisoners voting was against fundamental rights - the issue was that it wasn't proportionate and applied to all prisoners whether they were in indefinitely or for six months. It didn't help that the man who brought the case about his rights being infringed because he couldn't vote was literally an axe murderer :lol:
I think the solution was that basically if you're on "temporary licence" which is basically pre-probation, open prison etc then you're allowed to vote but other prisoners and I think there's indications that is considered proporitionate and not a breach of rights. And that seems about right to me - although I'm not personally particularly troubled by the idea that prisoners serving a custodial sentence can't vote.
QuoteBut I would recognize that voting about voting, of course, is something of a special case.
If we held a vote to lower the voting age to 14, should 14-17 year olds get to vote on it?
Yeah it's an interesting one. I think for Scottish Parliament and local elections in Scotland they've lowered the franchise to 16 which is one of those things I don't wildly object to, but there also doesn't seem to be much demand and from my understanding turnout hasn't been great.
I think there is a question around democracy in ageing societies and whether we need to start tilting the scales a little in favour of the young in some way or other.
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2021, 12:50:47 PM
Devil's advocate time: when there is a referendum on the ballot for restoring the voting rights of convicted felons, is it democratic?
Why would their voting rights have been removed in the first place?
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2021, 01:17:26 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2021, 12:50:47 PM
Devil's advocate time: when there is a referendum on the ballot for restoring the voting rights of convicted felons, is it democratic?
Why would their voting rights have been removed in the first place?
Probably some bullshit racist reason that we mostly forgot about.
But I don't know. It always seemed weird. Once you have served your sentence you should be given a second (or third...or fourth...or whatever) chance.
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2021, 01:17:26 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2021, 12:50:47 PM
Devil's advocate time: when there is a referendum on the ballot for restoring the voting rights of convicted felons, is it democratic?
Why would their voting rights have been removed in the first place?
I know this is a complete non sequitur, but I'll bring something up notheless:
QuoteIn 2010, the percentage of all Americans with a felony record was 8.11 percent (including three percent who have served time in prison), but for black males the rate was 33 percent (including 15 percent who have been to prison). Additionally, while the absolute number of people with felony convictions increased threefold between 1980 and 2010, it increased fivefold for blacks during that time.
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2021, 01:23:28 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2021, 01:17:26 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2021, 12:50:47 PM
Devil's advocate time: when there is a referendum on the ballot for restoring the voting rights of convicted felons, is it democratic?
Why would their voting rights have been removed in the first place?
I know this is a complete non sequitur, but I'll bring something up notheless:
QuoteIn 2010, the percentage of all Americans with a felony record was 8.11 percent (including three percent who have served time in prison), but for black males the rate was 33 percent (including 15 percent who have been to prison). Additionally, while the absolute number of people with felony convictions increased threefold between 1980 and 2010, it increased fivefold for blacks during that time.
:hmm: I'm looking for a pattern in America.
In Sweden you get to vote in prison (duh). :)
To be fair, though, this quote I provided is a classic example of how you take a good point and dishonestly drive it too far. Comparing the general population against black males makes the race disparity seem exaggerated, because you have to read it carefully to realize that both the male part and the race part play a role. I missed it myself the first time. It's a sleight of hand that implies a fourfold increase in chance of felony conviction for being black, which is an exaggeration of a nevertheless sad reality.
Quote from: Tyr on November 22, 2021, 08:42:03 AM
On cancel culture and the earlier talk of woke being a negative word only used by the anti woke...
BBC News - Don't call young people 'woke', says leading head teacher
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-59347577
I think we've already established that in the US people self identify as woke and the UK they do not.
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2021, 12:53:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2021, 12:50:47 PM
Devil's advocate time: when there is a referendum on the ballot for restoring the voting rights of convicted felons, is it democratic?
That is a tricky one. I would argue that they should get a vote for sure, but I know I am a minority there.
But then, I would also vote to restore their voting rights anyway, since I think it is insane that anyone should ever lose the right to vote. It is, IMO, a fundamental right that cannot and should not ever be taken away.
But I would recognize that voting about voting, of course, is something of a special case.
If we held a vote to lower the voting age to 14, should 14-17 year olds get to vote on it?
I've thought about this some more, and I actually DGs question is really, really well timed - in that it illuminates something pretty important in the discussion, and circles neatly back to the basic question of racism around vipers position.
When we say that 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote, and presumably would not get to vote on whether they get to vote, it is based on a very particular idea about 17 year olds. Or more importantly, a very specific claim about the set of human beings who are under 18.
In a nutshell, it is that humans under some age are broadly not developed, experienced, and <whatever> enough to credibly cast an informed ballot. You can get into arguments about whether that is true, or whether there are other criteria that ought to discriminate more then age. But I don't think anyone would disagree with the observation that a 2 year old should not be voting. Or a 6 year old. Or even a 10 year old. So we have to broadly define some age, and you could make good arguments about what that age ought to be, but I don't think anyone fundamentally disagrees with the idea that there is SOME age under which broadly speaking allowing people younger then that to vote will have a negative impact on our society, including a negative impact on them.
But we are not hiding from the fact that it is in fact a characteristic of that group that we are consciously choosing to discriminate against, and hence we must defend that active choice to deny them a voice on that basis.
Circle back to vipers defense of the Confederacy as a "democratically formed" state. If you are going to insist that it is legitimate, you have to make an argument for why black people were not allowed a say in that vote. At the time, they had no problem making a very specific argument about why - black people were seen as being not fully human, not favored with the same divine rights, and not capable of making informed choices for themselves, and best suited for their position as slaves to the white voters. IE....straight out, unadulterated, racism.
Can you argue that the Confederacy was a democratic state in any meaningful sense without explaining how that can be true without racist justifications? I guess you could in theory, but I cannot imagine what that would look like. Do I think viper is a racist? I actually don't. But I do think he is willfully refusing to square his beliefs because he values his conclusions more then he values intellectual consistency. Because there is no fucking way you can call the Confederacy a democratically formed entity without explaining how that fits into the reality of (in some places) 40% of the population being enslaved and unable to vote on its formation, when the very purpose of its formation was the protection of slavery.
I don't think he is a racist, I do think he is the most obvious example I've ever seen of cognitive dissonance.
"My God, Mr. Berkut, you have quarreled with every poster on the forum, and now you are quarreling with yourself!"
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2021, 01:26:14 PM
In Sweden you get to vote in prison (duh). :)
That's the obvious answer, but an American politician that sought to restore that would get crucified by the judgmental majority.
It should be remembered that slavery was simply the manifest element of the domination of the South by the planter aristocracy. Wealth was in the form of land and slaves, and wealth properly came to a person by inheritance. Only the wealthy could afford a good education (even today, southern states are the worst at funding public education and have disproportionately more private schools for the wealthy) and so the planter class wasn't just the planters themselves, but their relatives who made up the professional classes, served as elected representatives, were the judges, etc.
The problem the southern landed aristocracy faced wasn't the elimination of slavery per se, it was the fact that other sources of great wealth were introduced with the industrial revolution, and this new money threatened the landed aristocracy's monopoly on the levers of power. Lincoln said that he would not seek the elimination of slavery, but there was nothing to stop "new money" from eventually overtaking "old money" as the wellspring of social power. Protecting slavery and its association with the "Southern way of life" was the rallying cry, but it really was about maintaining the dominant position of old money.
And that's what Viper is defending so ferociously.
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2021, 12:43:36 PM
It is not democracy at all if the people who are actually relevant to the question are not allowed to vote on the question.
The US Supreme Court had ruled black people weren't citizens of the US as per the Constitution. Black men who gained the right to vote lost it by a decade after the civil war, not only in the ex-Confederacy, but also in other States, for State and Federal elections.
By this reasoning, the US was not a democracy in 1776. Blacks couldn't vote, women couldn't vote, American indians couldn't vote and Loyalists were intimidated to not pronounce themselves on the issue. The main issues were taxes (which amount and by whom), lands being reserved for French Catholics (Province of Quebec) and Indians, and the attempt to incite to a slave rebellion by promising emancipation to any slave who joined the British army. By your reasoning, since Blacks, Indians and Women weren't consulted, it wasn't a true democracy that was founded back then. Yet I know of no serious scholar argueing the US was never a democracy.
When Texas declared and fought for its independance, 95% of their rebel army was white men. No blacks were allowed to vote. No Apache or Comanche was asked what he thought of the matter. The rebellion was directed by slave owners and within a few months of gaining independance, all kind of laws were passed to restrict the rights of Free blacks remaining in Texas. Yet, it did not prevent the US from annexing the territory and going to war with Mexico over it. By your reasoning, that would be undemocratic.
When the United States waged war against the Confederacy, its President hadn't been elected by Indigenous communities of the then US, women did not vote for him or any other candidates and most of the US states did not allow universal voting rights for free black men, let alone slaves.
The US did not declare abolition first before calling for volunteers. The only goal was to preserve the Union at any cost.
When the war was won and the US finally emancipated all slaves in all States, including those loyal to the Union, by your reasoning, it was a non democratic vote, since among the ones concerned were the citizens of the ex-Confederate States who weren't allowed a vote on this matter.
Quote
The "reasons were flawed" is bullshit evasion, and you know it. It has nothing to do with whether the reasons were flawed or not. The reason could be the best possible reasons, but if the vote does not include the people directly impacted by the vote, it is not democracy.
Then by this reasoning, the US wasn't a democracy until the Civil Rights Act. Indians did not vote on ceding their lands, they were conquered and faced with either extermination or reservation. Black men did not have universal sufferage in most US States, even in New York, it had to wait by 1870 for them to have universal rights to vote.
QuoteAnd "fighting to keep the states in the Union" was not even a little bit evil, since the reason the states wanted to leave was so they could make sure to remain undemocratic, rather then acceded to the actual wishes of the actual democratic majority. They seceded, remember, because the majority elected a President they did not like.
The North fought to keep the Confederate States in the Union. If the Confederates had asked for a guarantee to slavery being a perpetual right for States in exchange of rejoining the Union, the North would have agreed to it. Don't take my word on it, take Lincoln's word:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.On its views on emancipation:
While Lincoln has since been praised for the Proclamation, it was also a war tactic. In freeing all enslaved people, he understood that this would deprive the South of labor, either crippling its economy or encouraging it to stay in the Union. However, he also worried about the consequences of his actions, foreseeing an endemic racial divide in the nation.Quote
You cannot claim to care about democracy while defending the Confederacy for being formed democratically, when they were not, while attacking the Union for fighting to actually defend actual democracy!
You equate democracy with universal voting rights. They are related, but democracy can certainly exist without it, as it had for centuries. Nearly all of today's democratic countries forbid voting to women until the late 19th early 20th century. Most of the countries in the American continent denied voting rights to non white folks for many years after they became a democracy. I'm unsure of the exact date for Canada, but I think it was only in the 1960s than indigenous women had the right to vote. Lots of Canadians would disagree that Canada was not a democracy since the 1840s, with the advent of responsible government.
The Union fought to defend its vision of a perpetual union. It happens so that the States wanting to secede wanted to protect their economic interests, which happened to be slavery, an evil and immoral insitution.
But it does not matter.
No more than it matters that US freed itself of British tyranny to go after the Indian lands it so coveted. No more than it matters than one of the most important matter to Texians fighting for their freedom from Mexico was the freedom to own slaves in their little corner of the world.
No more than it matters that the US waged a war against its Southern neighbor to secure more lands for its slaves' crops. It doesn't make the US an evil country (tm), it simply makes it the same as the other countries of its time.
Of course, looking at this particular conflict with our modern eyes, we have a hard time sympathizing with slavers. Slavery has been abolished for a while now in occidental countries. Not one of us grew up in a country were slavery was legal. We weren't raised with slavery being "normal". Not one of us here grew up in a society where it was socially acceptable to openly discriminate against non white individuals. And I'm convinced not one of us would tolerate its State making any kind of move to restrict non white folks rights.
But its irrelevant, because we are not looking at the past with today's lense to understand it. Germany's actions in WWII were evil because they were way outside of the standards of the times. Ghenghis Khan was no more evil than most conquerors&empires of its time, yet it's death toll would make Hitler drool.
And again, because I'll need to repeat this often: Democracy is not universal voting rights. Democracy is not 1 individual = 1 vote either. The Canadian Senate is unlected, yet its as democratic as your non elected presidential cabinet. Universal voting rights are a modern invention of democracies. Possibly a natural evolution of the concept. But it was never the norm, nor is it part of the definition. Yes, looking at it today, if only Berkut had the right to vote on New York's secession, it would be extremely dumb. But was it stupid that a King alone could decide the future of his country in the middle ages up to the end of absolute monarchy? It was kinda the norm back then, one "englightened" individual surrounded by "wise" advisors deciding for everything affecting everyone. Even today's hardcore monarchists wouldn't tolerate that... But it was pretty much the rule for centuries, with no major rebellions to topple this dictatorship.
Laws restricting what a woman could do or not do where perfectly democratic even if they didn't vote for it. Of course they're stupid lookit at it with today's eyes. Just like a school mandating its teacher refrain from relations with men. But that's a common mistake, looking at the past with today's lenses.
Quote from: grumbler on November 22, 2021, 08:57:17 PM
And that's what Viper is defending so ferociously.
I am defending the right to democratically secede, within the confine of what democray exists at the moment of such declaration.
They could have decided to secede because they didn't like Lincoln's beard, it would have been just as irrelevant.
Like I said in another thread, had the Southern States imposed unionization of the Northern workers in 1860, the North would have seceded, for the same reasons you highlighted.
And again, they were dumb for rebelling to support slavery, they should have done like planters elsewhere and instead negotiated for compensation. With that money, they could have themselves shifted their fortune to other investments and kept a certain social status, just as the other planters elsewhere did.
But it's totally irrelevant. Their legislative assembly, as duly composed before Secession voted on Secession and a majority voted in favor. Once that is passed, the duty of a citizen is to defend its states, even if he believes the underlying causes to be wrong. Just like many Americans supported their country through the Vietnam and 2nd Iraq wars. The wars might have been unjust, hyped by propaganda, but it was democratically decided and citizens even had more than once chance of electing a government against the continuation of the wars.
Right of wrong, when your nation goes to war, you defend it. You don't betray it, you don't flee elsewhere to avoid the draft either; nor do you pay a doctor to write a false report making you ineligible for such draft.
Quote from: Valmy on November 22, 2021, 01:01:54 PM
Whether or not it was "democratic" among white men varies from state to state in the secession crisis. I don't see how you can look at it objectively as some kind of clean democratic mandate across the board.
When was the first referendum held in the US? How was the US Constitution adopted by individual colonies? How did a territory became a State? How did you have South and North Dakota, did the people in the then territories voted on forming two seperate States? How were any territory partitionned to become States? How were the inhabitants (all of them) consulted on forming a State? What did the Shawnee and Potawatomi had to say about becoming part of the US? When did they vote into become citizens of the States of Ohio, Illinois and Michigan? Was it all a democratic process according to you and Berkut's views? Should we consider the US of 1783-89 a military dictatorship? A failed democracy? Any other kind of non democracy? Or would you apply the non democracy part only to US territories, former or present? If a democratic country has parts of its citizens who are not allowed to vote at all elections, by design, is it still a democracy or something else?
I'll repeat what I said to Berkut: Examing it with the standards of the time. There were no referendums in the US until the early 20th century, afaik. It's not how things were done in 1775-1776, it's not how things were done in Texas when it declared it's independence, it's not how things worked to decide if a State should be admitted to the Union. Even if Texans had voted against the Union, the US could have annexed the territory just as well, it's a power reserved for the Federal Congress, not the individual in the States.
I can not imagine today's USA annexing a territory, making a new State out of it without a modern democratic referendum in favor of it passing in that territory first. But that's not how it worked in the past. Doesn't mean the US never was a democracy because it didn't conformed to today's standards.
The legality of slavery and denial of equal rights for blacks has nothing to do with the moral judgement of slavery, and using "Well, it was legal" to defend slavery as "democratic" is making me question my previous insistence that your idiocy has nothing to do with racism.
"We don't like Lincolns beard and we voted and decided to leave the Union". That would be a nominally democratic vote. Not liking someones beard, so far as I am aware, is not really influenced by whether or not you are a slave, and you can reasonably argue that a vote on Lincolns beard that denied slaves a voice is still "democratic". It would be as democratic as anything can be in that time of restricted suffrage.
You cannot have a vote on slavery while denying the slaves the right to have a say, and then proclaim proudly your support for the outcome that enshrines slavery as "democratic". I mean....you can. But you look like a fucking racist asshole when you do. Because the only possible justification you can have for denying them a say in that vote is that they are not worthy of that say. Like the justification for not letting children vote.
This is not about what was legal, or typical of the time. It is not about monarchy, or any of the other tortured justifications for slave states. It is not about what the Union wanted, or how most people of the time were racist by our standards.
You made a specific claim that the Confederacy was a legitimate, moral political entity on the basis of its establishment through democratic means. It was not established by any kind of actual democracy that means anything other then some pedantic legal definition.
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2021, 11:13:12 PM
Right of wrong, when your nation goes to war, you defend it. You don't betray it, you don't flee elsewhere to avoid the draft either; nor do you pay a doctor to write a false report making you ineligible for such draft.
So you would have joined the Einsatzgruppen and done your duty?
You know it is entirely rational, reasonable, and defensible to support one group seceding without having to support all rebellion....right?
I mean, it might be a little harder, you might have to think a bit more and understand more nuance and particulars of the situation....
But you don't have to defend fucking slave states in order to be falsely consistent....
Quote from: grumbler on November 22, 2021, 08:45:28 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2021, 01:26:14 PM
In Sweden you get to vote in prison (duh). :)
That's the obvious answer, but an American politician that sought to restore that would get crucified by the judgmental majority.
Tbf I'm not sure exactly how official place of residence of prisoners in Sweden works. I'm thinking of possible impact on local elections, if you have a small town and a big prison. I have never heard about any perceived problem there, but then we don't have a big prison population in Sweden (and my guess is that prisoners typically aren't heavy voters).
Quote from: The Brain on November 23, 2021, 04:36:33 AM
Tbf I'm not sure exactly how official place of residence of prisoners in Sweden works. I'm thinking of possible impact on local elections, if you have a small town and a big prison. I have never heard about any perceived problem there, but then we don't have a big prison population in Sweden (and my guess is that prisoners typically aren't heavy voters).
I'd think the solution would be like that of the military: they submit an absentee ballot for the jurisdiction of their home when they went to the military/to prison.
Quote from: grumbler on November 23, 2021, 08:46:54 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 23, 2021, 04:36:33 AM
Tbf I'm not sure exactly how official place of residence of prisoners in Sweden works. I'm thinking of possible impact on local elections, if you have a small town and a big prison. I have never heard about any perceived problem there, but then we don't have a big prison population in Sweden (and my guess is that prisoners typically aren't heavy voters).
I'd think the solution would be like that of the military: they submit an absentee ballot for the jurisdiction of their home when they went to the military/to prison.
It is what we do as citizens abroad. Most recent place you lived for at least 6 months.
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2021, 10:58:50 PM
By this reasoning, the US was not a democracy in 1776. .... Yet I know of no serious scholar argueing the US was never a democracy.
When Texas declared and fought for its independance . . . By your reasoning, that would be undemocratic.
I don't think there is any reputable historian today who would say that the "US" was a democracy in 1776; the best that could be said was that some of colonies turned states were pretty democratic by the standards of the time.
I don't think there is any reputable historian today who would extol the democratic credentials of the Texas insurgents; the war with Mexico is generally reviewed in a negative moral light by most historians. It was even highly controversial in its time; for example, US Grant, who fought as an officer in the war, called it in his memoirs one of the most unjust wars ever waged.
QuoteWhen the United States waged war against the Confederacy, its President hadn't been elected by Indigenous communities of the then US, women did not vote for him or any other candidates and most of the US states did not allow universal voting rights for free black men, let alone slaves.
The US did not declare abolition first before calling for volunteers. The only goal was to preserve the Union at any cost.
This is a bizarre take on the history - you write as if the United States suddenly sprang into being in 1861. The United States existed as a nation in 1861 - it had forts and property owned and paid for by the entire people of the nation. The shooting started when the so-called Confederacy waged war against the US.
When native peoples or women were voting in US federal elections is an interesting and important historical question but hardly relevant to consideration of the ACW. There weren't large numbers of frustrated Sioux desparate to vote for Breckinridge.
The Confederacy had been attacking and seizing United States property by force for months before Sumter. The idea that the United States waged war on the Confederacy unprovoked is insane and bizarre. The Secessionists were pretty intent on seizing all federal property without compensation.
QuoteThe US did not declare abolition first before calling for volunteers. The only goal was to preserve the Union at any cost.
If that was the only goal there would not have been a Civil War because the Republicans would have immediately just adopted the Southern Democrats platform. But instead they refused to permit the expansion of slavery into the territories.
So tell me Viper, if the only goal was to preserve the Union and nothing else why not just support slavery and its expansion and denounce the abolitionists? That would have absolutely held it all together no problem.
Viper a succombé aux charmes de la cause perdu.
:(
Quote from: Berkut on November 23, 2021, 12:59:19 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2021, 11:13:12 PM
Right of wrong, when your nation goes to war, you defend it. You don't betray it, you don't flee elsewhere to avoid the draft either; nor do you pay a doctor to write a false report making you ineligible for such draft.
So you would have joined the Einsatzgruppen and done your duty?
I would have been born and raised in Germany, joined the Hitler's Youth at 12 as was mandatory of any kid and most likely would have been convinced that there were enemies seeking to destroy my country from within and without.
I would have likely been ignorant of what exactly where the Einsatzgruppen doing. In most likelyhood, I would have joined the Waffen SS or another SS corps and been sent to the Eastern Front by the time I reached 19 years old.
Had I been a 20-something adult in 1939 Germany, I would have been conscripted and sent to the Whermacht.
I don't think I would have fled the country in 1935, had I been an ethnic German from an old family, former nobility, no. Had I been a soldier in the mid 30s, I would have participated in all of German's conflicts, it is doubtful I would have deserted, unless forced to commit some atrocities. The French, Belgians, British&others who fought for Germany against their country because of their firm beliefs in Hitler's work weren't hailed as heroes when they came back after the war. They were branded as traitors. Just like the Loyalists the Americans expelled from their country after winning their independence war.
And I don't think that's different from anyone here in the same circumstances. Conscripted at 11-12 years old, you don't get much of a say into what you do.
Obviously, the analogy is a false one and you know it perfectly well.
In the time frame of 1860, a majority of Americans believed Whites to be superior to Blacks. Even in the North, a majority of the army officers didn't believe in racial equality. They didn't fight for racial equality either. Most of them believed slavery was immoral, but considering the black folks as their equals was a step to far. That's why most White officers declined to lead black-only regiments. That's why there were no mixed regiments in the US Army during the war: the vast majority of the citizens were White Supremacists. Even among the abolitionists, many white folks didn't believe the blacks were their equal.
But as we well know, the Southerners weren't in the death camps business. And Germany wasn't a democracy between 1933 and 1945. So the point is moot, and the comparison inapt.
Otherwise, we might as well bring the recent Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars. US soldiers (other countries too) noticed atrocities being committed by their side and often an unwillingness to prosecute to the full extent of the law. Not until some media pressure, at least. Should they have deserted and joined the Vietcong? Saddam's army? Al-Queida maybe?
Virtually no white person in the North believed in racial equality in 1860 (Lincoln included) and yet a majority opposed slavery. Matters stood quite differently in the South.
The argument seems to be that because the North was not perfect, and was a morally flawed society, therefore one can not make any moral judgments at all between the two causes...
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2021, 09:47:21 AM
The Confederacy had been attacking and seizing United States property by force for months before Sumter. The idea that the United States waged war on the Confederacy unprovoked is insane and bizarre. The Secessionists were pretty intent on seizing all federal property without compensation.
The Federal government was unwilling to vacate properties and stalled the negotiations that were happening. Beauregard fired on Fort Sumter after it became clear the promises of evacuation were empty.
Quote
So tell me Viper, if the only goal was to preserve the Union and nothing else why not just support slavery and its expansion and denounce the abolitionists? That would have absolutely held it all together no problem.
Because they underestimated the willingness of the South to fight for the status quo. Lincoln was surprised by the strength of the rebellion. Most volunteer soldiers were enlisted for just a few months.
Had the Republicans been certain there would be a massive uprising, that other States would join the Secessionist movements, that citizens in border States would rebel forcing them to suspend habeas corpus in those States (thus transforming themselves into some kind of non democracy, I guess, by your arguments?), that there would be a bloody war for 4 years, would they have done it?
If the goal was to abolish slavery, immediatly, from the beginning, why try to negotiate with the Southern States to get them back in the Union?
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2021, 10:15:41 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2021, 09:47:21 AM
The Confederacy had been attacking and seizing United States property by force for months before Sumter. The idea that the United States waged war on the Confederacy unprovoked is insane and bizarre. The Secessionists were pretty intent on seizing all federal property without compensation.
The Federal government was unwilling to vacate properties and stalled the negotiations that were happening. Beauregard fired on Fort Sumter after it became clear the promises of evacuation were empty.
There was no promise of evacuation. But we are talking about just a few short weeks and months after secession, before the new administration had even been sworn in. How is that fair? Surely negotiations should at least have given Lincoln a few minutes or hours on the job before just declaring it all in bad faith and attacking with guns.
Quote
Because they underestimated the willingness of the South to fight for the status quo. Lincoln was surprised by the strength of the rebellion. Most volunteer soldiers were enlisted for just a few months.
Really? After decades of political crisis over this issue they failed to notice it was contentious? Once the secession crisis kicked off? Both sides thought it would be a short thing.
QuoteHad the Republicans been certain there would be a massive uprising, that other States would join the Secessionist movements, that citizens in border States would rebel forcing them to suspend habeas corpus in those States (thus transforming themselves into some kind of non democracy, I guess, by your arguments?), that there would be a bloody war for 4 years, would they have done it?
Yes because the slavery issue was extremely contentious, it wasn't like the Republicans could have just given up on all points because opposition to slavery was the entire reason they existed. Anyway both sides suspended habeas corpus. Especially once the war got going people were regularly hung by both sides without trial because it was a freaking war and crazy shit happened.
QuoteIf the goal was to abolish slavery, immediatly, from the beginning, why try to negotiate with the Southern States to get them back in the Union?
The goal of the abolitionists was to do that. But the Republican coalition had all kinds of shades of opposition to slavery and the one everybody agreed on was no expansion to slavery into the territories. That was the hill the Republicans chose to die on and the hill the Southern Democrats refused to accept.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 23, 2021, 10:10:58 AM
Virtually no white person in the North believed in racial equality in 1860 (Lincoln included) and yet a majority opposed slavery. Matters stood quite differently in the South.
Yes. It is surprising how people born and raised in a given situation, mixed with religion that gives them inalienable rights over other people, can be resistant to change.
Quote
The argument seems to be that because the North was not perfect, and was a morally flawed society, therefore one can not make any moral judgments at all between the two causes...
The argument is that the Southern States had the right to declare independence, as per the rules of the time generally used to decide any other matter. The causes are irrelevant. Be it the protection of slavery, the deportation of French Catholics, the conquest of Indian lands, it all amounts to the same.
The secondary argument is that once your nation has seceded and war is upon you, you can either do your patriotic duty and fight, even if you disagree, or leave or betray your nation.
Lots of people here have hinted that they would gladly have betrayed their friends, neighbors, families in order to pursue a 21st century ideal in the mid 19th century. I am expressing doubts about that.
The difference between the Government of London passing laws to tax its colonies and set aside lands for Indians and Catholics over the objection of local assemblies is minimally more unjust than the Government of Washington passing laws to decide the future of slavery over the objection of local assemblies. The most populous part of the Empire simply decides what is right and what is wrong.
In one case, they are heroes, patriots. Even if they are slavers. Even if they wanted to expand without constraints, over the objections of the neighboring nations who had treaties with the colonial empire.
On the other case, they want to keep on using slave labor to maintain their economy, but they are reviled as traitors.
Square in the middle, you got a bunch of white dudes rebelling against an encroaching central government whose main gripe was that they couldn't bring their slaves with them in the new land. And the US annexing this territory and a bunch of other. Specifically so slaves could grow crops over there.
I don't see much difference between the Confederacy or that.
It is interesting with the confederacy that so many of the arguments focus on "secession bad! " and "how dare they betray us!" and the like rather than the simple undemocratic nature of their secession in support of cementing the most anti-democratic cause going.
If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.
The CSA of course wasn't.
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:09:16 AM
If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.
I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?
viper, the claim that everyone in the South mostly went along is just simply false. The idea that the only options are whole hearted buying into the cause of "betrayal" is false as well. Many simply refused to serve what they saw as a bad cause. Many did serve even though it was a shitty cause because they were drafted, and simply deserted as soon as able, or refused to fight particularly hard. There is not binary here in how individuals chose to serve.
And your claim that Germany was not a democracy? WTF????
Who are you to say it wasn't a democracy in 1933-45? I bet the Nazi's would claim to have the popular support of the people. And you are actively arguing that you cannot judge the validity of a "democracy" just because they didn't let their black people vote! You are arguing that the Confederacy has a *moral* legitimacy based on it being a "democracy", while claiming that the Nazi's do not have such legitimacy because....wait for it....they did not have elections after the one were the democratic people elected the fascist to lead them? (And yes, I know THAT election was utter bullshit as well, but YOU don't get to make that argument).
The Nazi's were not a legitimate democractic government. And neither was the Confederacy. The Confederacy did not have the will of the people behind it. It was not a democracy in any sense of the word. It was not a bad democracy, it was not a democracy at all.
You can argue, for better or for worse, that if they colonies had truly had a "perfect democracy" they may very well have all voted to rebel against the Crown in an effort to get government that better represents them. Maybe true, maybe not - but at least the argument can be made. After all, the initial rebellion was not even an attempt at independence, but just an attempt at local governance.
You cannot argue at all that if the South in 1861 had perfect democracy where everyone who ought to get to vote gets to vote, that they would have voted to secede in order to protect slavery. I think it is rather safe to say that 100% of the slaves are probably voting no on that one.
Hence the Confederacy cannot possibly be called democratic, anymore then Nazi German was democratic. The will of the people had no bearing on the political choices of its leaders in either case.
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2021, 11:06:50 AM
Yes. It is surprising how people born and raised in a given situation, mixed with religion that gives them inalienable rights over other people, can be resistant to change.
What religion was that?
QuoteThe argument is that the Southern States had the right to declare independence, as per the rules of the time generally used to decide any other matter. The causes are irrelevant. Be it the protection of slavery, the deportation of French Catholics, the conquest of Indian lands, it all amounts to the same.
No rules of the at time, or any other time, gave states the "right" to secede. The political structure of the time gave them the
power to secede, but not the economic and military power to secede successfully.
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:09:16 AM
If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.
I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?
I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:29:53 AM
I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.
All democracies are flawed. As are all non-democracies. Only children believe in perfect governments.
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2021, 11:06:50 AM
The argument is that the Southern States had the right to declare independence, as per the rules of the time generally used to decide any other matter.
There was no rule of the time that permitted the southern states to secede; the well understood rule of the time was that they could not. The Constitution created a union of the people of the states, not a union of separate states (as with the earlier confederation). the constitution did not permit states to withdraw. This was well understood at the time - as there has been at least two earlier episodes where the question of secession of a state had been raised and then rejected for the reasons summarized in Jackson's proclamation
As has been beaten to death a million times, the Civil Wars moved the USA from "These United States" to "The United States" and basically set that a member state cannot just take their toys and leave without consent of the rest of the federal state.
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:29:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:09:16 AM
If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.
I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?
I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.
I am not aware of any mechanism in US law for secession. Is there such a mechanism? If not, then accepting secession would mean throwing the Rule of Law out the window.
I wouldn't be surprised if secession would require that you first amend the constitution. If so, then that's the logical first step for secessionists.
From a more practical standpoint, of course, if you get parts of the nuclear weapons forces on your side as a secessionist the chances of the US accepting your secession increase. Nukes were not available to the Confederacy, horrible fanfiction notwithstanding.
Quote from: The Brain on November 23, 2021, 12:06:17 PM
I am not aware of any mechanism in US law for secession. Is there such a mechanism? If not, then accepting secession would mean throwing the Rule of Law out the window.
I wouldn't be surprised if secession would require that you first amend the constitution. If so, then that's the logical first step for secessionists.
I don't think that necessarily follows. You can create a lawful mechanism for secession having accepted it - and practically speaking if Congress and the other states accept a secession, what does a Supreme Court ruling saying that's unlawful actually mean? You know what divisions do they have to enforce that?
Although I think practically secession normally comes in a "constitutional moment" when the rules are in flux and things are being settled so I think it would just be part of that.
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:29:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:09:16 AM
If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.
I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?
I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.
I'm not sure it is a flaw that we don't want to let our country break into component pieces the way the English seem to feel about the UK.
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 02:27:23 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:29:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:09:16 AM
If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.
I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?
I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.
I'm not sure it is a flaw that we don't want to let our country break into component pieces the way the English seem to feel about the UK.
It's a huge flaw.
A country that only exists by force is no democracy.
Letting random secessionists get just one 50%+1 vote isn't the way either. But a clear majority of the electorate? There's just no excuse for forcing them to remain part of the country.
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 02:32:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 02:27:23 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:29:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:09:16 AM
If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.
I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?
I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.
I'm not sure it is a flaw that we don't want to let our country break into component pieces the way the English seem to feel about the UK.
It's a huge flaw.
A country that only exists by force is no democracy.
Letting random secessionists get just one 50%+1 vote isn't the way either. But a clear majority of the electorate? There's just no excuse for forcing them to remain part of the country.
The UK doesn't seem concerned about clear majorities, if Brexit and talk around Scottish independence are any indication.
And force? Why are you positing soldiers in the streets?
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 02:36:19 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 02:32:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 02:27:23 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:29:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:09:16 AM
If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.
I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?
I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.
I'm not sure it is a flaw that we don't want to let our country break into component pieces the way the English seem to feel about the UK.
It's a huge flaw.
A country that only exists by force is no democracy.
Letting random secessionists get just one 50%+1 vote isn't the way either. But a clear majority of the electorate? There's just no excuse for forcing them to remain part of the country.
The UK doesn't seem concerned about clear majorities, if Brexit and talk around Scottish independence are any indication.
And force? Why are you positing soldiers in the streets?
Brexit wasn't a clear majority. It was an example of the what not to do, let the nutters get 50%+1 just once that I mentioned.
Why am I positing soldiers on the streets? What do you expect to happen in this theoretical situation then?
So California has a referendum where 70% of eligible voters say they want to be independnet.... The US says no.... And then how do they stop California going ahead and doing it?
I just don't see how it can be legitimate if a bare majority counts for one side but not the other. I mean it does help if your just de-legitimise one side as nutters I suppose :P
I don't think there's necessarily a flaw within the US because there's no big serious secessionist movements. If those exist then there's a decision of whether you acknowledge that's a possible action and risk break-up of your country, or you refuse to deal with/acknowledge them and risk possibly having to compel to stay in a country against their will. But it's not an issue in the US.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2021, 02:46:35 PM
I just don't see how it can be legitimate if a bare majority counts for one side but not the other. I mean it does help if your just de-legitimise one side as nutters I suppose :P
Change.
We can vote 100 times whether to blow up your house and if it keeps failing your house stands.
But the change just needs to pass once and then it's gone. No more votes are brining it back.
There's a key distinction between a vote between two equal choices and one between the status quo and an irreversible change.
If you like we can term it that a true majority for the status quo side means no more votes. The issue is dead forever. But that doesn't seem fair.
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 02:49:32 PMChange.
We can vote 100 times whether to blow up your house and if it keeps failing your house stands.
But the change just needs to pass once and then it's gone. No more votes are brining it back.
There's a key distinction between a vote between two equal choices and one between the status quo and an irreversible change.
If you like we can term it that a true majority for the status quo side means no more votes. The issue is dead forever. But that doesn't seem fair.
But again that just privileges the status quo as inherently legitimate which seems weird if it lost majority support/consent by the governed, but not by enough. I don't see why it's any better that there isn't change and your house isn't blown up, than despite wanting to leave your kept locked in your house because you didn't want it enough :P
There is always going to be a +1 point - and maybe if you have a constitutional tradition of supermajorities in referendums it'll be fine if it's organised that way. But if not it feels like both sides should have the same hurdle.
The 70s Scottish referendum is a huge example of this where they needed not just a majority of votes but also said it needed at least 40% of the electorate - unlike every other electoral exercise in British history. The Yes vote won (52/48%) but turnout was only 60%-ish so, Yes only got 33% of the vote and devolution didn't go any further. It caused a lot of controversy at the time and campaigns around devolution for the next 20 years because the perception was the will of Scottish voters was ignored on a technicality - things like a (devolutionist) constitutional convention, "A Claim of Right for Scotland" etc.
But even the 1997 referendum which went 75% to Yes would only just pass the old 70s threshold because turnout was about 60%.
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 02:32:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 02:27:23 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:29:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:09:16 AM
If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.
I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?
I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.
I'm not sure it is a flaw that we don't want to let our country break into component pieces the way the English seem to feel about the UK.
It's a huge flaw.
A country that only exists by force is no democracy.
Letting random secessionists get just one 50%+1 vote isn't the way either. But a clear majority of the electorate? There's just no excuse for forcing them to remain part of the country.
Of course there is an excuse. Even people in the minority ahve rights, and a majority destroying a country impacts those rights that are not amenable to the will of the mob.
There could be circumstances under which secession is morally and ethically justifiable. 50%+1 is perhaps a necessary, but hardly sufficient condition for that justication.
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 02:49:32 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2021, 02:46:35 PM
I just don't see how it can be legitimate if a bare majority counts for one side but not the other. I mean it does help if your just de-legitimise one side as nutters I suppose :P
Change.
We can vote 100 times whether to blow up your house and if it keeps failing your house stands.
But the change just needs to pass once and then it's gone. No more votes are brining it back.
There's a key distinction between a vote between two equal choices and one between the status quo and an irreversible change.
If you like we can term it that a true majority for the status quo side means no more votes. The issue is dead forever. But that doesn't seem fair.
You could require a two-thirds majority.
The southern states in 1860 didn't even allow the Republican Party to be on the ballot. The succession votes were either made by a loyal rump of people, as Valmy said they were voted and re-voted until the desired results, or the results were ignored.
There is very little democratic about the succession crisis post-1860 election.
Quote from: Berkut on November 23, 2021, 03:21:07 PM
Of course there is an excuse. Even people in the minority ahve rights, and a majority destroying a country impacts those rights that are not amenable to the will of the mob.
There could be circumstances under which secession is morally and ethically justifiable. 50%+1 is perhaps a necessary, but hardly sufficient condition for that justication.
I don't think 50%+1 is necessary or that there is a right answer it just depends on what your constitutional/political tradition is I think.
I would note that I think it's striking how much Americans in this thread on a classic ACW hijack are defending the importance of protecting minority (elector/voter) rights and suggesting supermajorities etc etc - when it's exactly those provisions that enabled the South to keep Jim Crow as long as they did and that basically make the current GOP strategy that we all worry about in the Qua Vadis thread work. It's away from just thinking about secession - that's the downside.
I think that's an example of how your view and what is just depends on social and historical context of where you are.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2021, 03:07:18 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 02:49:32 PMChange.
We can vote 100 times whether to blow up your house and if it keeps failing your house stands.
But the change just needs to pass once and then it's gone. No more votes are brining it back.
There's a key distinction between a vote between two equal choices and one between the status quo and an irreversible change.
If you like we can term it that a true majority for the status quo side means no more votes. The issue is dead forever. But that doesn't seem fair.
But again that just privileges the status quo as inherently legitimate which seems weird if it lost majority support/consent by the governed, but not by enough. I don't see why it's any better that there isn't change and your house isn't blown up, than despite wanting to leave your kept locked in your house because you didn't want it enough :P
There is always going to be a +1 point - and maybe if you have a constitutional tradition of supermajorities in referendums it'll be fine if it's organised that way. But if not it feels like both sides should have the same hurdle.
The 70s Scottish referendum is a huge example of this where they needed not just a majority of votes but also said it needed at least 40% of the electorate - unlike every other electoral exercise in British history. The Yes vote won (52/48%) but turnout was only 60%-ish so, Yes only got 33% of the vote and devolution didn't go any further. It caused a lot of controversy at the time and campaigns around devolution for the next 20 years because the perception was the will of Scottish voters was ignored on a technicality - things like a (devolutionist) constitutional convention, "A Claim of Right for Scotland" etc.
But even the 1997 referendum which went 75% to Yes would only just pass the old 70s threshold because turnout was about 60%.
Sure. In theory the same rules should apply to both sides.
But this only works with an A or B decision.
When your decision is to A or not to A then what happens if neither side wins? By default that makes not to A.
If this cannot be the case as one side wants it then its easy for them to game things and say they want something else despite being happy with a draw.
When it comes to a "destructive" action of large change then the status quo is always not necessarily better but certainly known and understood and a worthy drop back.
I wouldn't suggest the same exists for stuff like constitutional amendments on extending voting rights.
50%+1 is just insanity with massive things like independence or brekshit where history has shown if the yes side wins then no compromise can be tolerated.
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 04:05:14 PM
Sure. In theory the same rules should apply to both sides.
But this only works with an A or B decision.
When your decision is to A or not to A then what happens if neither side wins? By default that makes not to A.
If this cannot be the case as one side wants it then its easy for them to game things and say they want something else despite being happy with a draw.
When it comes to a "destructive" action of large change then the status quo is always not necessarily better but certainly known and understood and a worthy drop back.
I wouldn't suggest the same exists for stuff like constitutional amendments on extending voting rights.
50%+1 is just insanity with massive things like independence or brekshit where history has shown if the yes side wins then no compromise can be tolerated.
But Brexit's a great example - it took 4-5 years to happen. The same would happen with independence it's very rarely a "next day we're independent" kind of thing - unless the state is already collapsing.
Of course there can be compromise or a re-consideration you just need to actually win the political argument. There were loads of moments when things could have been re-considered or reversed. That it wasn't is because one side was bad at politics and consistently lost the arguments they needed to be winning. That's a very bad reason to fiddle with the mandateor voting system to give one side insurance or protect them from themselves.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2021, 12:25:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 23, 2021, 12:06:17 PM
I am not aware of any mechanism in US law for secession. Is there such a mechanism? If not, then accepting secession would mean throwing the Rule of Law out the window.
I wouldn't be surprised if secession would require that you first amend the constitution. If so, then that's the logical first step for secessionists.
I don't think that necessarily follows. You can create a lawful mechanism for secession having accepted it - and practically speaking if Congress and the other states accept a secession, what does a Supreme Court ruling saying that's unlawful actually mean? You know what divisions do they have to enforce that?
Although I think practically secession normally comes in a "constitutional moment" when the rules are in flux and things are being settled so I think it would just be part of that.
Like I said, if you don't care about Rule of Law then anything is possible, of course. If making things legal after the fact is on the table then you can start an Auschwitz, no legal problem. Just make it legal in the future.
But isn't just the same as how almost all constitutions are created? There is a need or a desire for a typically select group to create and promulgate a new constitution so a mechanism is created to make it lawful even though they're often largely binding on future generations and that's it - off they go to write the rules for a society.
I think with secession it would be similar - if there was a pressing political need the legal means would be created for a similarly select group to do the same.
With Auschwitz and Nazism - the legality is not the core problem. I'd add that for all of the extent Weimar Germany as an example of the dangers of political failure - it had a good constitution with an independent judiciary. We all know about the risks of unstable democracy and that 33% party and the conservative groups thinking they could co-opt it etc, but it also shows the limits of a constitutional order or the rule of law (though the Nazis had Schmitt - who is having a resurgence both in the West thinking about climate politics in particular, and in China) as a protection.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2021, 06:13:10 PM
But isn't just the same as how almost all constitutions are created? There is a need or a desire for a typically select group to create and promulgate a new constitution so a mechanism is created to make it lawful even though they're often largely binding on future generations and that's it - off they go to write the rules for a society.
I think with secession it would be similar - if there was a pressing political need the legal means would be created for a similarly select group to do the same.
Legal means created after the act != Rule of Law. Many new countries are created through extraordinary means, for obvious reasons. But there is nothing inherent in secession that means it has to be extraordinary.
QuoteWith Auschwitz and Nazism - the legality is not the core problem.
No shit.
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 02:39:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 02:36:19 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 02:32:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 02:27:23 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:29:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:09:16 AM
If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.
I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?
I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.
I'm not sure it is a flaw that we don't want to let our country break into component pieces the way the English seem to feel about the UK.
It's a huge flaw.
A country that only exists by force is no democracy.
Letting random secessionists get just one 50%+1 vote isn't the way either. But a clear majority of the electorate? There's just no excuse for forcing them to remain part of the country.
The UK doesn't seem concerned about clear majorities, if Brexit and talk around Scottish independence are any indication.
And force? Why are you positing soldiers in the streets?
Brexit wasn't a clear majority. It was an example of the what not to do, let the nutters get 50%+1 just once that I mentioned.
Why am I positing soldiers on the streets? What do you expect to happen in this theoretical situation then?
So California has a referendum where 70% of eligible voters say they want to be independnet.... The US says no.... And then how do they stop California going ahead and doing it?
50%+1 is used for all kinds of decisions. Legalize drugs? 50%+1. Criminilize/legalize abortion? 50%+1. Permit felons to vote or not? 50%+1. Remove all voting restrictions? 50%+1. Impose voting restrictions? 50%+1. Admit a new State/Province? 50%+1.
If a country has special provisions that requires another kind of margins, like 2/3 votes for any kind of other votes, I'm not opposed to that standard being applied.
But since 50%+1 is nearly always the norm, except when it's time to weaken an overbearing central government, I'm defininately opposed to special rules that amount as voter suppression techniques.
If a State/Province/Country/Region wants to democratically secede, it should be the duty of the central authority to negotiate in good faith with this part to organize a referendum.
On this, the British government acted in a very mature way with the Scottish independence movement, much more than the Canadian government ever did. It acted the way a modern democracy should act. Unlike Spain, Serbia or Russia.
Even though I disagree with Brexit, the people have spoken. It's what they wanted. Europe respected that and negotiated the exit. The UK really fumbled it on its own. As it should be. The people of the UK voted on it. Not the people of Germany, France and Poland. This is how it should be.
But somehow, when it comes to a declaration of independence, it's all good when it's done in the past, they're all heroes for breaking away from their countries, like the US, Texas, the Dutch Republic, Algeria, South Korea (we even fought a war to make sure that part could stay independent, but that was ok then...), most people become totally hysterical and try to change the rules. Somehow, what's democratic in one place is no longer democratic in another place. The method of voting laws that was good everywere up to this point is no longer valid. Everyone wanting to leave should be jailed or hanged.
I'll never get the point of forcing other people to love you.
FFS, if Republican States wanted to leave the Union today, the Blue States should let them go and provide ressetlement package for everyone wanting to leave these places.
Quote from: The Brain on November 23, 2021, 05:24:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2021, 12:25:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 23, 2021, 12:06:17 PM
I am not aware of any mechanism in US law for secession. Is there such a mechanism? If not, then accepting secession would mean throwing the Rule of Law out the window.
I wouldn't be surprised if secession would require that you first amend the constitution. If so, then that's the logical first step for secessionists.
I don't think that necessarily follows. You can create a lawful mechanism for secession having accepted it - and practically speaking if Congress and the other states accept a secession, what does a Supreme Court ruling saying that's unlawful actually mean? You know what divisions do they have to enforce that?
Although I think practically secession normally comes in a "constitutional moment" when the rules are in flux and things are being settled so I think it would just be part of that.
Like I said, if you don't care about Rule of Law then anything is possible, of course. If making things legal after the fact is on the table then you can start an Auschwitz, no legal problem. Just make it legal in the future.
For many centuries, divorce was illegal. Then it became so.
Abortion was once illegal in Canada. Then a women had an illegal abortion, was criminally sued and that law was changed. AFTER THE FACT DAMMIT!!!!
Horrible, horrible, I say.
Most social advances happen like that, you know? People commit crime. Like that black lady who sat in the front of the bus. She broke the rule of law. According to your principle, she should have been jailed for life, and Black folks should still have their seperate seats at the back of buses, their seperate drinking fountain, their seperate schools, toilets, colleges, etc. They did break the rule of the law and it only became legal after they violated the law. But they should still be in jail, I guess? We made it legal after the fact... Totally wrong...
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:09:16 AM
It is interesting with the confederacy that so many of the arguments focus on "secession bad! " and "how dare they betray us!" and the like rather than the simple undemocratic nature of their secession in support of cementing the most anti-democratic cause going.
If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.
The CSA of course wasn't.
And yet, before Secession, everyone was ok with these States. Nothing changed with the Confederacy. Same people in power, same laws as before. In 1860 they were democracies when they voted in the election. By 1861 they were no longer democracies. By 1865, they were democracies again, even though the majority of voters couldn't vote at Federal and State level.
Kinda weird, don't you think?
Slavery was all fine in 1846. Still absolutely fine in 1848. I mean, no American soldier who served in this war is considered today to be a white supremacist worthy of cancellation. Nobody is proposing to cancel the memory of Winfield Scott. Or John C. Fremont. Though he was severly reprimanded for freeing the slaves in a war that was supposed to be about the end of slavery.
The Mexican-American war was a pure landgrab war to extend slavery in the US. Those who fougth there were all heroes. Half the same dudes who fought 15 years laters were evil slavers worthy of damnatio memoriae. Things changed so fast! :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 23, 2021, 09:36:48 AM
I don't think there is any reputable historian today who would say that the "US" was a democracy in 1776; the best that could be said was that some of colonies turned states were pretty democratic by the standards of the time.
I don't know about reputable historians, but there are a lof of historians and politicians who extoll the virtue of democracy every 4th of July.
Quote
I don't think there is any reputable historian today who would extol the democratic credentials of the Texas insurgents; the war with Mexico is generally reviewed in a negative moral light by most historians. It was even highly controversial in its time; for example, US Grant, who fought as an officer in the war, called it in his memoirs one of the most unjust wars ever waged.
Yes. And he fought the war. Was he a criminal like Robert E. Lee?
What was the difference between Grant fighting an unjust war for his country and a Confederate officer fighting an unjust war for his country?
Quote
When native peoples or women were voting in US federal elections is an interesting and important historical question but hardly relevant to consideration of the ACW. There weren't large numbers of frustrated Sioux desparate to vote for Breckinridge.
It is very important when you want to redefine what constitutes a democracy in 1860-61 with 21st century eyes.
The CSA States were democratic when they voted in the Presidential election. I don't think there were widespread calls in the North that their elections were illegitimate and martia law should be imposed on South Carolina for not letting its Black population vote. I'm willing to be proven wrong, just point me in the right direction.
Had they not seceded, they would have continued with the exact same democracy they had for a few more decades. How long slavery would have survived, I guess it would have disapeared a little sooner than sharecropping and other exploitative methods disapeared, when the South had enough capital to industrialize & mechanize its farming activites. If they hadn't wasted their money in war and hadn't been utterly destroyed, things might have evolded faster, as it did elsewhere.
I mean, no one seriously lamented the end of slavery in Canada, yet many English Canadians had developped large estates in Ontario and Nova Scotia. By the time slavery was abolished, slaveowners were compensated and had 4 years to free their slaves. Seems to have worked well. Racial riots had been confined to Nova Scotia shortly after a Loyalist influx, I'm not aware of significan racial clash in the 19th century of Blacks vs Whites. No reason this model couldn't have been exported elsewhere.
Of course, today, people find it outrageous that slave owners were compensated and not the slaves themselves. 21st century mentality projected into the past, and all that.
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2021, 07:23:08 PM
50%+1 is used for all kinds of decisions. Legalize drugs? 50%+1. Criminilize/legalize abortion? 50%+1. Permit felons to vote or not? 50%+1. Remove all voting restrictions? 50%+1. Impose voting restrictions? 50%+1. Admit a new State/Province? 50%+1.
I can only think of one case where a 50%+1 vote was used to involuntarily deprive a group of its citizenship, though, and the Nuremburg Laws shouldn't be your lodestone.
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2021, 09:47:21 AM
The Confederacy had been attacking and seizing United States property by force for months before Sumter. The idea that the United States waged war on the Confederacy unprovoked is insane and bizarre. The Secessionists were pretty intent on seizing all federal property without compensation.
Not unprovoked, they formed an army to push the Union soldiers out of their territory.
Way disproportionate to the problem, sure.
The Confederates were negotiating with Union representatives for the transfer of these forts. It is totally false to claim they wanted it without compensation:
The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with Confederate agents because he claimed the Confederacy was not a legitimate government, and that making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign governmenthttps://archive.org/details/impendingcrisis00pott/page/n3/mode/2up
And:
However, President Lincoln was determined to hold all remaining Union-occupied forts in the Confederacy: Fort Monroe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Monroe) in Virginia, Fort Pickens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Pickens), Fort Jefferson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Jefferson_(Florida)) and Fort Taylor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Zachary_Taylor) in Florida, and Fort Sumter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter) – located at the cockpit of secession in Charleston, South Carolina.https://books.google.ca/books?id=D11iDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
The Confederacy was willing to negotiate, the US President was not.
And I am unaware of any attacks by the CSA before Fort Sumter.
Half the States seceded only after Lincoln's second call for volunteers, when it became clear he intended to retake the entire South by force.
Quote
So tell me Viper, if the only goal was to preserve the Union and nothing else why not just support slavery and its expansion and denounce the abolitionists? That would have absolutely held it all together no problem.
Tell me Valmy, if the goal was to abolish slavery from the beginning, why were Union officers who did just that were reprimanded by their government? Like, say, Frémont? Why condemn someone who did exactly what you wanted him to do?
Why didn't the North used free Black men in Antietam? Why wait until 1863 to recruit Black soldiers? Why wait for an emancipation declaration? Why not proclaim it as soon as Lincoln was elected? Why not as soon as the South seceded? Why not abolish slavery in Maryland until 1865? Why not in 1863 with the rest of the States under Union control? Why no mixed regiments, Black and White men fighting together? Why did Sherman considered the former slaves following him a problem? Didn't he fight to specifically free those folks?
I'll repeat what I said multiple times already: The South fighted to protect slavery. The North fighted to protect the Union. And both are equally stupid and evil.
Had Lincoln proclaimed emancipation than invaded the South to free the slaves by force, I would agree with your point of view and be sympathetic to the Northern cause. As it is, it's just a war between two belligerent with different world views that could easily have been solved diplomatically. They went to war, it's a shame, but war happens. There were no good guys and bad guys in the Seven Years War, as much as I hate to admit it. It was two colonial power fighting to clear the other out of their way to establish their own domination. Same as in 1861.
Quote from: grumbler on November 23, 2021, 08:05:43 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2021, 07:23:08 PM
50%+1 is used for all kinds of decisions. Legalize drugs? 50%+1. Criminilize/legalize abortion? 50%+1. Permit felons to vote or not? 50%+1. Remove all voting restrictions? 50%+1. Impose voting restrictions? 50%+1. Admit a new State/Province? 50%+1.
I can only think of one case where a 50%+1 vote was used to involuntarily deprive a group of its citizenship, though, and the Nuremburg Laws shouldn't be your lodestone.
50%+1 is always the norm in democracy, except for some very specific case, generally constitutional changes that tend to deprive central governments of their power to redistribute it to its constituent parts. No wonder such governments tried to make it extremely hard to change the law. They knew it could threaten their central authority.
Canada was created by a 50%+1 law passed by the UK government. French speakers were denied of their rights by 50%+1. When the decision to merger lower and upper Canada was made with the explicit goal of assimilatin French-Canadians into the superior English culture, it was 50%+1 in the UK parliament. When the government of Canada sent the First Nations to boarding schools, it was an act of Parliament, no super majority there. When French speakers in Manitoba, Ontario and Alberta where denied their right to public French schools, it was 50%+1.
Seems to me you must revise your history. There's plenty of instances just in Canada where lots of people lost their rights by a 50%+1 margin in parliament. We did not even bother with referendums.
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2021, 10:58:45 AM
There was no promise of evacuation.
Negotiators were led to believe and evacuation of the forts was coming. No firm promises, but it was certainly hinted at.
Then Lincoln sent supplies.
QuoteHow is that fair? Surely negotiations should at least have given Lincoln a few minutes or hours on the job before just declaring it all in bad faith and attacking with guns.
negotiators were given many weeks.
Quote
Really? After decades of political crisis over this issue they failed to notice it was contentious? Once the secession crisis kicked off? Both sides thought it would be a short thing.
Yes, just like the British thought the rebellion would be over as soon as their troops entered Boston, just as Santanna thought he won after destroying The Alamo. Or like France and Germany thought WW1 would be over by Christmas. People always seem to understimate the duration of wars, don't really understand why, even for contentious issues that lasted decades.
Quote
The goal of the abolitionists was to do that. But the Republican coalition had all kinds of shades of opposition to slavery and the one everybody agreed on was no expansion to slavery into the territories. That was the hill the Republicans chose to die on and the hill the Southern Democrats refused to accept.
For once, we are in agreement on this subject. :)
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2021, 07:37:50 PM
And yet, before Secession, everyone was ok with these States. Nothing changed with the Confederacy. Same people in power, same laws as before. In 1860 they were democracies when they voted in the election. By 1861 they were no longer democracies. By 1865, they were democracies again, even though the majority of voters couldn't vote at Federal and State level.
Kinda weird, don't you think?
Slavery was all fine in 1846. Still absolutely fine in 1848. I mean, no American soldier who served in this war is considered today to be a white supremacist worthy of cancellation. Nobody is proposing to cancel the memory of Winfield Scott. Or John C. Fremont. Though he was severly reprimanded for freeing the slaves in a war that was supposed to be about the end of slavery.
The Mexican-American war was a pure landgrab war to extend slavery in the US. Those who fougth there were all heroes. Half the same dudes who fought 15 years laters were evil slavers worthy of damnatio memoriae. Things changed so fast! :)
Where do these ideas come from? What histories are you reading?
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2021, 08:10:35 PM
The Confederates were negotiating with Union representatives for the transfer of these forts. It is totally false to claim they wanted it without compensation:The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States.
You realize that the implication of this claim is that the CSA representatives accepted and agreed with the concept that the forts were federal property? Right?
And thus the decision to fire on Ft Sumter, regardless of any imaginary trickery by that scurrilous Lincoln fellow, was . . .
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 23, 2021, 09:03:38 PM
You realize that the implication of this claim is that the CSA representatives accepted and agreed with the concept that the forts were federal property? Right?
And thus the decision to fire on Ft Sumter, regardless of any imaginary trickery by that scurrilous Lincoln fellow, was . . .
"Yes, I'm pointing this gun at you, but I don't want to steal your car. I want to buy if for a dollar. If you don't agree... well, that's what the gun is for."
John C. Fremont was pretty anti-slavery before the Civil War...
Wait, do I read this correctly that viper is defending states that attempted to secede because they were worried that slavery would be banned and saw secession as the only way to preserve it? :huh:
He has no coherent argument here - he is just bouncing around from one silly thing to another because he really, really, really needs to believe that rebellion is awesome.
And btw viper, not a single southern state got 50%+1 votes for secession from the people who lives in those states. Not one.
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2021, 08:20:29 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 23, 2021, 08:05:43 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2021, 07:23:08 PM
50%+1 is used for all kinds of decisions. Legalize drugs? 50%+1. Criminilize/legalize abortion? 50%+1. Permit felons to vote or not? 50%+1. Remove all voting restrictions? 50%+1. Impose voting restrictions? 50%+1. Admit a new State/Province? 50%+1.
I can only think of one case where a 50%+1 vote was used to involuntarily deprive a group of its citizenship, though, and the Nuremburg Laws shouldn't be your lodestone.
50%+1 is always the norm in democracy, except for some very specific case, generally constitutional changes that tend to deprive central governments of their power to redistribute it to its constituent parts. No wonder such governments tried to make it extremely hard to change the law. They knew it could threaten their central authority.
Canada was created by a 50%+1 law passed by the UK government. French speakers were denied of their rights by 50%+1. When the decision to merger lower and upper Canada was made with the explicit goal of assimilatin French-Canadians into the superior English culture, it was 50%+1 in the UK parliament. When the government of Canada sent the First Nations to boarding schools, it was an act of Parliament, no super majority there. When French speakers in Manitoba, Ontario and Alberta where denied their right to public French schools, it was 50%+1.
Seems to me you must revise your history. There's plenty of instances just in Canada where lots of people lost their rights by a 50%+1 margin in parliament. We did not even bother with referendums.
Not sure why we should be stuck to repeating the mistakes of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2021, 02:06:19 AM
He has no coherent argument here - he is just bouncing around from one silly thing to another because he really, really, really needs to believe that rebellion is awesome.
And btw viper, not a single southern state got 50%+1 votes for secession from the people who lives in those states. Not one.
:yes: First Rule of Holes applies.
Quote from: grumbler on November 24, 2021, 08:51:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2021, 02:06:19 AM
He has no coherent argument here - he is just bouncing around from one silly thing to another because he really, really, really needs to believe that rebellion is awesome.
And btw viper, not a single southern state got 50%+1 votes for secession from the people who lives in those states. Not one.
:yes: First Rule of Holes applies.
It's the first rule of
holas.
Hi!
Quote from: grumbler on November 24, 2021, 08:51:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2021, 02:06:19 AM
He has no coherent argument here - he is just bouncing around from one silly thing to another because he really, really, really needs to believe that rebellion is awesome.
And btw viper, not a single southern state got 50%+1 votes for secession from the people who lives in those states. Not one.
:yes: First Rule of Holes applies.
I've always wanted to ask: what's the Second Rule of Holes?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 24, 2021, 10:14:54 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 24, 2021, 08:51:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2021, 02:06:19 AM
He has no coherent argument here - he is just bouncing around from one silly thing to another because he really, really, really needs to believe that rebellion is awesome.
And btw viper, not a single southern state got 50%+1 votes for secession from the people who lives in those states. Not one.
:yes: First Rule of Holes applies.
I've always wanted to ask: what's the Second Rule of Holes?
When you're at the bottom of a hole, don't shit in it?
Quote from: Tyr on November 24, 2021, 10:21:11 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 24, 2021, 10:14:54 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 24, 2021, 08:51:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2021, 02:06:19 AM
He has no coherent argument here - he is just bouncing around from one silly thing to another because he really, really, really needs to believe that rebellion is awesome.
And btw viper, not a single southern state got 50%+1 votes for secession from the people who lives in those states. Not one.
:yes: First Rule of Holes applies.
I've always wanted to ask: what's the Second Rule of Holes?
When you're at the bottom of a hole, don't shit in it?
How else will you get out of it?
I thought it was a commie thing - "Proles Before Holes"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 23, 2021, 08:59:36 PM
Where do these ideas come from? What histories are you reading?
Was there an election or not in 1860?
Berkut, and others, say the Southern States weren't a democracy because Black men weren't allowed to votes. Why was the US a democracy in 1860 without universal voting rights for Blacks? Why were the Southern States allowed to hold Federal elections under the same rules they used to separate, why was one election totally valid and the others after that totally invalid?
It seems to me the South's practices were pretty well entrenched in many US States at the time. Many States had property (land) requirements for voters, North and South.
I do not understand why one is supposedly democratic and the other is not.
All I have is Berkut shouting "THE SOUTH WAS NOT A DEMOCRACY WHEN IT SECEDED". Which is utter bullocks since it was considered a democracy when they voted for the previous elections, and all their laws were recognized as valid as any other State. I imagine some were struck down by the courts between 1783-1860, just as some Northern States got their laws overturned.
It seems to me Berkut and Valmy are moving the goal posts in what constitutes a democracy to specifically exclude the States who would form the Confederacy. What was acceptable before the 1860 election suddenly isn't. What was acceptable in Union States that were democratic is not acceptable for Southern States and makes them undemocratic.
I find this reasoning extremely weird. As weird as my 21st century view of restricting voting rights based on one's skin color. Everyone knows you should only remove voting rights based on political opinions, the ones in the opposite camp, duh! ;) :P
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 24, 2021, 10:14:54 AM
I've always wanted to ask: what's the Second Rule of Holes?
"If you find yourself in a hole and are still digging, see The First Rule of Holes."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 23, 2021, 09:03:38 PM
You realize that the implication of this claim is that the CSA representatives accepted and agreed with the concept that the forts were federal property? Right?
And thus the decision to fire on Ft Sumter, regardless of any imaginary trickery by that scurrilous Lincoln fellow, was . . .
Federal property is collective state property. If you own a house with your wife, in many places, she would be owed half of it when you divorce. If she denies you the right to enter the house, refuses to sell her share or buy yours, she is in total illegality.
The proper procedure would be to go to court.
But if she hires a squad of armed men to protect the house from you, you would go to the police and have them removed. But if its the police occupying your house, is she still acting in good faith? Is the State acting in good faith?
You know as well as I do that Federal buildings are paid by revenues collected in the name of, and from all citizens of all States. People pay taxes to build and maintain the infrastructures. If one party leaves, it is owed a part of that building. Since buildings can't be moved, you usually negotiate a settlement.
The Feds were unwilling to negotiate. Going to court wasn't an option because a Supreme Court with only Northerners would never have agreed to cede a Federal property to individual States.
When the Americans seceded from the UK, they took all the buildings that was in the territory. Despite Great's Britain objections. If the British troops didn't vacate the property, it was attacked. This is the same as the South did. They declared independence, the North refused to recognize it and negotiate in good faith to surrender the Forts, so they fired on it to expel the intruders.
It was as wrong as any war is any war is wrong. But occupying the Forts was just as wrong.
It's not like wars are defined by an extremely complex set of rules that all parties agree to under the supervision of a neutral arbiter.
Quote from: viper37 on November 24, 2021, 12:00:15 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 23, 2021, 08:59:36 PM
Where do these ideas come from? What histories are you reading?
Was there an election or not in 1860?
At the risk of quoting wikipedia: "There were no ballots distributed for Lincoln in ten of the Southern states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. "
Some democracy - you can't call yourself a democracy and leave major party candidates off the ballot because you don't like them...
Quote from: Syt on November 23, 2021, 11:38:16 PM
Wait, do I read this correctly that viper is defending states that attempted to secede because they were worried that slavery would be banned and saw secession as the only way to preserve it? :huh:
They were justified to leave the Union for whatever reason they wanted.
They could have said it was because they wanted the new territories for themselves after a Federal government had decided to set aside some lands for First Nations.
The reason is irrelevant.
States that were considered democratic just before decided to hold discussions on their future. Some decided to break away right now. Some others joined them once it was clear the Federal government would try to beat them into submission.
They could have joined because they thought Abraham Lincoln was a secret Satan worshipper under the guise of a religious man. They could have all separated because they thought a President should always be shaved. They could have decided to secede because they thought all Congressmen should have dyed their hair blue.
The reason is irrelevant. Point.
It can be reasonable, it can be stupid, it can be evil, it can be selfish, it can be justified by historical abuse, it can be racist, it does not matter.
If a State, any State, wants to democratically declare its independence, or wishes to join another territory, by the same standards it usually uses, it should be allowed.
The US fired in British troops because they wanted the lands set aside for French Catholics and Indians for themselves. They didn't want to pay as much taxes as the Crown was asking, and they wanted to decide locally what they should pay to the central authority.
When you think about it, it's a pretty stupid reason to fire on your countrymen, hang your neighbors, seize their property and expel them from the country they grew up in.
By the standards of the time, they were pretty much allowed to secede. Invading them to force them into the Union against their will was equally evil as seceding to protect slavery.
If the North had emancipated the slaves then invaded the South, it would have been a war about slavery for both sides. But that's not what happened.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2021, 11:36:48 PM
John C. Fremont was pretty anti-slavery before the Civil War...
And when he freed the slaves in his territory, he was reprimanded.
If the war had been about the abolition of slavery, Lincoln would not have reprimanded him for his work.
And...?
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2021, 02:06:19 AM
He has no coherent argument here - he is just bouncing around from one silly thing to another because he really, really, really needs to believe that rebellion is awesome.
And btw viper, not a single southern state got 50%+1 votes for secession from the people who lives in those states. Not one.
How many citizens of the 13 colonies voted directly for secession? How many citizens of Texas voted for secession from Mexico?
They elected representatives who voted on different matters, including secession or attachment to another country. That's how things were done back then. You are again changing the rules specifically to exclude the Southern States.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 24, 2021, 10:14:54 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 24, 2021, 08:51:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2021, 02:06:19 AM
He has no coherent argument here - he is just bouncing around from one silly thing to another because he really, really, really needs to believe that rebellion is awesome.
And btw viper, not a single southern state got 50%+1 votes for secession from the people who lives in those states. Not one.
:yes: First Rule of Holes applies.
I've always wanted to ask: what's the Second Rule of Holes?
The second rule of
holas is also "hi!".
Quote from: garbon on November 24, 2021, 03:16:48 AM
Not sure why we should be stuck to repeating the mistakes of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Agreed. The mistakes were to not let States gain their independence. That always brings conflicts.
How many dead because Russia wouldn't let Tchetchnia go? How many dead in Sudan? How many Kurds killed by Saddam and the Turk's regime?
Was it really worth it to fight independence of a nation to the bitter end to simply try and preserve the country's unity? Is it really worth the amount of dead to keep people in a State against their will?
Quote from: PDH on November 24, 2021, 12:13:45 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 24, 2021, 12:00:15 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 23, 2021, 08:59:36 PM
Where do these ideas come from? What histories are you reading?
Was there an election or not in 1860?
At the risk of quoting wikipedia: "There were no ballots distributed for Lincoln in ten of the Southern states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. "
Some democracy - you can't call yourself a democracy and leave major party candidates off the ballot because you don't like them...
Giving the vote to people who don't want separatism is anti-separatist and should not be tolerated.
Quote from: viper37 on November 24, 2021, 12:10:41 PM
Federal property is collective state property. If you own a house with your wife, in many places, she would be owed half of it when you divorce. If she denies you the right to enter the house, refuses to sell her share or buy yours, she is in total illegality.
The proper procedure would be to go to court.
But if she hires a squad of armed men to protect the house from you, you would go to the police and have them removed. But if its the police occupying your house, is she still acting in good faith? Is the State acting in good faith?
You know as well as I do that Federal buildings are paid by revenues collected in the name of, and from all citizens of all States. People pay taxes to build and maintain the infrastructures. If one party leaves, it is owed a part of that building. Since buildings can't be moved, you usually negotiate a settlement.
The Feds were unwilling to negotiate. Going to court wasn't an option because a Supreme Court with only Northerners would never have agreed to cede a Federal property to individual States.
When the Americans seceded from the UK, they took all the buildings that was in the territory. Despite Great's Britain objections. If the British troops didn't vacate the property, it was attacked. This is the same as the South did. They declared independence, the North refused to recognize it and negotiate in good faith to surrender the Forts, so they fired on it to expel the intruders.
It was as wrong as any war is any war is wrong. But occupying the Forts was just as wrong.
It's not like wars are defined by an extremely complex set of rules that all parties agree to under the supervision of a neutral arbiter.
OK.
I have decided to secede from the US.
But that treacherous bastard Biden won't negotiate in good faith over my fair share of federal property. My demands are reasonable - I've paid significant tax revenue over the years and I think one nuclear armed cruise missile is more than a fair deal.
Yet the Pentagon and the White House refuse to respond to my generous offers! And when I followed your rational suggestion and brought a case in family court they got it dismissed! They even sent the FBI to poke around and ask questions - can you believe it?
Clearly I would be justified in taking brutal and violent action against my wicked and unreasonable oppressors.
We had a Supreme Court of only Northerners?
Quote from: viper37 on November 24, 2021, 12:29:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 24, 2021, 03:16:48 AM
Not sure why we should be stuck to repeating the mistakes of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Agreed. The mistakes were to not let States gain their independence. That always brings conflicts.
How many dead because Russia wouldn't let Tchetchnia go? How many dead in Sudan? How many Kurds killed by Saddam and the Turk's regime?
Was it really worth it to fight independence of a nation to the bitter end to simply try and preserve the country's unity? Is it really worth the amount of dead to keep people in a State against their will?
Disagree as the South isn't trying to declare independence anymore.
Is Viper really saying that the Confederacy was entitled to one-half of each US base? Because that seems daft.
Quote from: The Brain on November 24, 2021, 10:21:51 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 24, 2021, 10:21:11 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 24, 2021, 10:14:54 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 24, 2021, 08:51:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2021, 02:06:19 AM
He has no coherent argument here - he is just bouncing around from one silly thing to another because he really, really, really needs to believe that rebellion is awesome.
And btw viper, not a single southern state got 50%+1 votes for secession from the people who lives in those states. Not one.
:yes: First Rule of Holes applies.
I've always wanted to ask: what's the Second Rule of Holes?
When you're at the bottom of a hole, don't shit in it?
How else will you get out of it?
The power of love.
(https://pbfcomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/PBF077-Bunny_Pit.png)
Aww. :)
It's nice to see the right wing embracing cancel culture and deplatforming. This underscores nicely that - in Canada at least - a significant amount of the concern about "cancel culture" has little to do with free speech and is much more concerned about what political viewpoints are cancelled or not.
QuoteAlberta Premier Jason Kenney is standing by his accusation that environmentalist David Suzuki was inciting violence with his comments at a climate change protest over the weekend.
The premier first made the claim in a tweet that linked to a National Post article, which quoted Suzuki as saying: "There are going to be pipelines blown up if our leaders don't pay attention to what's going on."
Suzuki made the comments amid a "Funeral for the Future" protest in Victoria on Saturday, organized by the environmental group Extinction Rebellion.
At a news conference on Tuesday, Kenney reiterated that he believes Suzuki is implicitly inciting people to eco-terrorism.
"It's like in the gangster movies where they say, 'You know, nice little pipeline you've got there. It'd be a terrible thing if something happened to it.' This is totally irresponsible," he said.
Kenney added that Suzuki has a track record of outrageous comments that should have had him "cancelled."
He cited an example from 2016, when Suzuki opined that former prime minister Stephen Harper should serve prison time for "wilful blindness" to climate change, which was reported by the National Post at the time.
"We resolve differences peacefully and democratically — not by threatening to throw our opponents in jail," Kenney said.
"And now he's basically saying, 'Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, be a terrible thing if something happens to those pipelines.' This is outrageous and should be called out as such."
The premier also criticized CBC News and other organizations for giving Suzuki a platform.
Suzuki responds
Suzuki told CBC News he does not condone blowing up pipelines, but that he suggested he fears it may happen if groups get fed up with inaction.
"Our leaders are not listening to the urgency that is demanded to meet the issue of climate change. And I was worried that this is just the next step — if it goes on — to people blowing up pipelines," he said.
Many climate-related protests have been examples of "peaceful civic disobedience," Suzuki said, suggesting the violence is coming from government and the RCMP.
"If you look at the people at Fairy Creek, what are they doing? They're fighting to protect Mother Earth, and the violence is all coming from the forces that want to maintain the status quo," said Suzuki, referring to anti-logging protests on Vancouver Island that have continued for more than a year.
Suzuki said he feels Kenney is deflecting from the important issue of climate change by making things political, as well as knocking the credibility of critics.
"He doesn't discuss climate change. It's all, 'These people are against the Alberta economy or they're foreign-funded radicals,'" he said.
"I would suggest that, right now, his avoidance of the serious discussion about climate change [and] Alberta's role in that and where to go in the future is something that is very, very serious for voters to think about."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenney-suzuki-climate-change-1.6260987
Cancel culture is not a new thing, it is not a new problem. It is a basic part of how societies determine if things have moved beyond the pale into the dangerous wilds. Ostracism, shame, all sorts of methods are employed to keep those who offend the norms in line. Very small tribal groups will fission if the rifts are deep enough.
What has changed is the immediacy that the internet affords those outraged. Calls for action right now, testimonials on how something impacted negatively, all are heightened and amplified by the medium itself.
It is neither a left thing nor a right thing, it is a far more vast issue as it is part of an ill-defined and unregulated sea change in how people are speaking with one another, voicing personal outrage, and feeling butt-hurt about what is said.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 24, 2021, 12:37:17 PM
OK.
I have decided to secede from the US.
But that treacherous bastard Biden won't negotiate in good faith over my fair share of federal property. My demands are reasonable - I've paid significant tax revenue over the years and I think one nuclear armed cruise missile is more than a fair deal.
Yet the Pentagon and the White House refuse to respond to my generous offers! And when I followed your rational suggestion and brought a case in family court they got it dismissed! They even sent the FBI to poke around and ask questions - can you believe it?
Clearly I would be justified in taking brutal and violent action against my wicked and unreasonable oppressors.
A citizen can not "secede" from its country. A region can. A citizen can not organize elections. A citizen is not sovereign, even if you had a micro-nation on an abandoned oil platform, Minsky the country would be sovereign, not Minsky the citizen of the Minsky country.
A better analogy would the Minsky citizen deciding to leave the US for Europe.
You want to sell your house/condo, but the government sends in military troops to occupy it: you're leaving, but everything you own stays in NYC because the State has paid for your security and provided you with a decent quality of life over the years
Do you accept this willingly? :)
Had Scotland seceded from Great Britain and the UK sent is army to occupy all offshore platforms and military bases, do you believe Scotland should just had accepted that they lost on this, and life goes on and all? Thankfully, they negotiated like grown ups before the referendum.
Viper, question for you separate from the southern rebels, if native reserves or municipalities voted to secede to Ontario or a maritime province would you object? where the cut off between an acceptable and unacceptable separation?
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2021, 04:29:22 PM
It's nice to see the right wing embracing cancel culture and deplatforming. This underscores nicely that - in Canada at least - a significant amount of the concern about "cancel culture" has little to do with free speech and is much more concerned about what political viewpoints are cancelled or not.
QuoteAlberta Premier Jason Kenney is standing by his accusation that environmentalist David Suzuki was inciting violence with his comments at a climate change protest over the weekend.
The premier first made the claim in a tweet that linked to a National Post article, which quoted Suzuki as saying: "There are going to be pipelines blown up if our leaders don't pay attention to what's going on."
Suzuki made the comments amid a "Funeral for the Future" protest in Victoria on Saturday, organized by the environmental group Extinction Rebellion.
At a news conference on Tuesday, Kenney reiterated that he believes Suzuki is implicitly inciting people to eco-terrorism.
"It's like in the gangster movies where they say, 'You know, nice little pipeline you've got there. It'd be a terrible thing if something happened to it.' This is totally irresponsible," he said.
Kenney added that Suzuki has a track record of outrageous comments that should have had him "cancelled."
He cited an example from 2016, when Suzuki opined that former prime minister Stephen Harper should serve prison time for "wilful blindness" to climate change, which was reported by the National Post at the time.
"We resolve differences peacefully and democratically — not by threatening to throw our opponents in jail," Kenney said.
"And now he's basically saying, 'Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, be a terrible thing if something happens to those pipelines.' This is outrageous and should be called out as such."
The premier also criticized CBC News and other organizations for giving Suzuki a platform.
Suzuki responds
Suzuki told CBC News he does not condone blowing up pipelines, but that he suggested he fears it may happen if groups get fed up with inaction.
"Our leaders are not listening to the urgency that is demanded to meet the issue of climate change. And I was worried that this is just the next step — if it goes on — to people blowing up pipelines," he said.
Many climate-related protests have been examples of "peaceful civic disobedience," Suzuki said, suggesting the violence is coming from government and the RCMP.
"If you look at the people at Fairy Creek, what are they doing? They're fighting to protect Mother Earth, and the violence is all coming from the forces that want to maintain the status quo," said Suzuki, referring to anti-logging protests on Vancouver Island that have continued for more than a year.
Suzuki said he feels Kenney is deflecting from the important issue of climate change by making things political, as well as knocking the credibility of critics.
"He doesn't discuss climate change. It's all, 'These people are against the Alberta economy or they're foreign-funded radicals,'" he said.
"I would suggest that, right now, his avoidance of the serious discussion about climate change [and] Alberta's role in that and where to go in the future is something that is very, very serious for voters to think about."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenney-suzuki-climate-change-1.6260987
Kenney does not advocate for cancellation. He is simply saying that if this kind of call to violence came from the right, the people would be cancelled.
Suziki is skirting into dangerously close GOP territory. "I'm not calling for violence, I'm just saying people will resort to violence if we don't get what we want". It comes as no surprise that the left is totally fine with this kind of discourse - as long as it comes from its side.
Here's a quote from 2017, translation by me:
Quote«On ne fait pas d'appel à la violence, mais on ne peut pas la condamner », dit le porte-parole du rassemblement anti-raciste, Simon Pouliot. Il dit comprendre que des manifestants soient à cran en raison de la montée de l'extrême-droite"[/i]
"We do not call for violence, but we can not condemn it", says the spokesperson for the anti-racism gathering, Simon Pouliot. He says he understand that some protestors are angry given the rise of far-right.
Where's that far right threatening everyone today in Quebec and Canada? It wasn't even there in 2017, the violence came from the left. It's a nice excuse they gave themselves, like always. Just like Suziki.
"He doesn't advocate cancellation, he's just saying they should be cancelled" :lmfao:
Quote from: viper37 on November 24, 2021, 12:00:15 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 23, 2021, 08:59:36 PM
Where do these ideas come from? What histories are you reading?
Was there an election or not in 1860?
Berkut, and others, say the Southern States weren't a democracy because Black men weren't allowed to votes.
No, I said that they were not a democratically formed because the purpose of their formation was explicitly to keep black people enslaved, therefore any claim that their formation was democratic is either outright racist (because you are arguing that black people should not be allowed a say in their status) or deeply ignorant. We've eliminated the "deeply ignorant" explanation at this point.
QuoteWhy was the US a democracy in 1860 without universal voting rights for Blacks?
Because there is no reason to presume that had there been universal voting rights for blacks in 1860, they would have all voted to dissolve the Union. Are you making such a claim?
Quote
Why were the Southern States allowed to hold Federal elections under the same rules they used to separate, why was one election totally valid and the others after that totally invalid?
One was a vote to protect the enslavement of black people, and the other was not. As has been explained over and over and over again.
Is this distinction really that hard for you to understand?
Quote from: viper37 on November 24, 2021, 12:24:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2021, 02:06:19 AM
He has no coherent argument here - he is just bouncing around from one silly thing to another because he really, really, really needs to believe that rebellion is awesome.
And btw viper, not a single southern state got 50%+1 votes for secession from the people who lives in those states. Not one.
How many citizens of the 13 colonies voted directly for secession? How many citizens of Texas voted for secession from Mexico?
They elected representatives who voted on different matters, including secession or attachment to another country. That's how things were done back then. You are again changing the rules specifically to exclude the Southern States.
Not a single southern state had a vote where 50%+1 of their people voted for a representative who was in favor of succession.
Unless, of course, you don't count black people as people who deserve votes. Which appears to be your claim now.
Lets imagine there are ten people who are going to go to lunch.
Of these 10 people, 7 of them fucking hate hate hate McDonalds. No matter what, they really really don't want to go to McDonalds.
Now, lets vote on where we are going for lunch. But only 4 people get to vote, and 3 of them really love McDonalds. So the vote is 3-1 in favor of McDonalds.
viper would call this democracy, and claim that his was perfectly legit, and in fact an ethical and moral way to go about deciding where to have lunch.
Lets imagine a similar case, where there are 10 people who are going out for drinks. Now, it turns out that there are only three options, and nobody much cares which one they go to. Everyone is pretty happy about any of them.
Only four people are around to vote, and they choose Bobs Tavern, 3-1, and everyone is happy with that, because really, it didn't matter that a bunch of people didn't get to vote, because they just didn't care.
Same thing in both cases, but if someone were to come along and argue vehemently that in the first case the choice of McDonalds was arrived at democratically, they would be idiots. It was not.
In the second case, nobody much cares. Was it democratic? I guess - there was a vote, and it's not like there was any reason to imagine it would have gone different if everyone got a vote, since we know that nobody much cared. You can argue that it was not REALLY democractic but it won't have much moral or ethical weight, because it didn't actually harm anyone anyway, that the democracy wasn't very inclusive.
A bunch of people voting on whether to keep other people enslaved is NOT FUCKING DEMOCRATIC IF YOU DON'T LET THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE THE SLAVES GET A VOTE. To suggest otherwise might not be racist, but it is morally and ethically at least as bad, if not worse.
Viper is incorrect in any case to say that the votes on Southern secession were carried out on the same rules as the Presidential election. Only three states had such votes (Virginia, Texas, and Tennessee - which did it twice after the pro-secession folks disliked the first result). The remaining states did it as a mere piece of legislation.
Re the latest wide use of "woke" over here - one is that civil servants have apparently stopped a comms campaign about getting a booster shot to save Christmas. They were described as the "woke 'blob'".
Secondly there's a history podcast with Dominic Sandbrook and Tom Holland called the Rest is History, which is very fun. They've recently been doing a World Cup of English Monarchs and the eventual winner v Elizabeth I was, very surprisingly, Aethelstan. Dominic Sandbrook - who writes for the Daily Mail occasionally - quoted some of the best irate Daily Mail commenter comments about this:
QuoteWoke nonsense again. Lefty historians trying to erase the history and undermine the authority of Queen Elizabeth in favour of some bloke nobody's heard of just to appease the anti-monarchist rabble.
QuoteJust shows how out of touch these academics are. Never heard of him. What woke tosh.
QuoteMore woke crap.
So we can now add 10th century Anglo-Saxon monarchs to the list of things accused of being "woke" in the UK :lol:
Edit: Incidentally I absolutely love the guy who's worried about the authority of Elizabeth I :lol:
Did You Kay miss out on politically correct? Seems that's what they're using woke to mean.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2021, 02:02:31 PM
Did You Kay miss out on politically correct? Seems that's what they're using woke to mean.
Yeah - it's replaced "political correctness gone mad" plus "hipster-ish" things like avocadoes or saying that you're not really a fan of good Queen Bess and actually you like the English monarchy's early work.
:lol:
That's amazing.
PC has also been used inconsistently.
Whatever the term for something, two things are going to be a constant. If the term is applied to something that is legitimately dumb, then the term is going to become pejorative almost by definition. It's hard for a term to be positive when it's associated with something legitimately non-positive. The second thing is that if a term becomes pejorative, it will also be abused by those who want to tar non-stupid things with it.
If we are to have effective discussion, hopefully so that we can address the legitimately dumb things, we can't be sidetracked by these two things happening. They're always going to happen. We'll never get to have an effective discussion if we can't get past "oh, no, you used the same term that some Nazi used". Whatever term is going to come after "PC" or "woke" is going to live through exactly the same dynamic, so let's just get over it.
Well yeah. But there's no discussion to be had there though really.
Some pink deadlocked weirdo is standing on a street corner insisting santa being a man is wrong, that santa being a woman would also be bad, non-binary doesn't suit santa..no. We must refer to santa as Pjem.
Obviously fucking ridiculous.
Everyone would agree on that. The only discussion is on their right to free speech or whether they're disturbing the children or some such. Pretty minor nit picky stuff.
But... It's not with the ridiculous people that the term most gets used and is being weaponised for political purposes. It is being used as a general purpose rallying cry by the stupid right to oppose anyrhing they fancy. It is part of the radicalisation tool kit that is a major problem in our schools.
We all agree the weird fringe left wing crazies are... Well crazy. But they're not a danger.
The anti woke squad however are the current number one threat to democracy.
Pretty weird about Athelstan; the first king of England and the obvious choice if one wants to go down an England first we are Anglo-Saxon Folke!! route; my impression that the right has many ignorant plonkers in its ranks has been strengthened :D
Quote from: Tyr on November 30, 2021, 03:26:41 AM
We all agree the weird fringe left wing crazies are... Well crazy. But they're not a danger.
I am certain you and I would not agree on who is a weird fringe left wing crazy and who is not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2021, 04:55:26 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 30, 2021, 03:26:41 AM
We all agree the weird fringe left wing crazies are... Well crazy. But they're not a danger.
I am certain you and I would not agree on who is a weird fringe left wing crazy and who is not.
There we come to the problem being people on the right calling anything they don't like woke. :p
Disagree with socialised health care if you like. But it's clearly not crazy. Same too for me and privatised health care - backwards and wrong. But not lunacy in the league of George Soros is funding cultural Marxism in our classrooms to turn the kids all communist.
Quote from: Tyr on November 30, 2021, 05:05:44 AM
There we come to the problem being people on the right calling anything they don't like woke. :p
Disagree with socialised health care if you like. But it's clearly not crazy. Same too for me and privatised health care - backwards and wrong. But not lunacy in the league of George Soros is funding cultural Marxism in our classrooms to turn the kids all communist.
*We* haven't come there. You've come there because that's where you always come when this issue comes up.
You said "there's no discussion" and "we would agree on that." I'm saying there is plenty we would not agree about.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 30, 2021, 04:13:09 AM
Pretty weird about Athelstan; the first king of England and the obvious choice if one wants to go down an England first we are Anglo-Saxon Folke!! route; my impression that the right has many ignorant plonkers in its ranks has been strengthened :D
I love it - I am, of course, a big fan of the Anglo-Saxons so very happy to see Aethelstan finally get some recognition.
But as I say I think this is part of the way "woke" in the UK has slightly expanded to just mean "trendy" or "new". It does make me wonder how much is just a reaction against the "new" and the risk of having to learn something new and the thinking that will cause. Moving from the story everyone knows about Elizabeth I to have to learn about some distant almost Dark Ages figure who is not on any school curriculum - at least that I've known. And that might shift cause a shift in thinking about other bits of English history - but it does take effort when it's easy to learn about the established narrative that you've known since you were a kid.
Just like learning to deal with vegans in the family wanting different options or, say, learning about the other view of Captain Cook. Old verities and the bed of received knowledge/wisdom you could rely on have been thrown out.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2021, 05:33:40 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 30, 2021, 04:13:09 AM
Pretty weird about Athelstan; the first king of England and the obvious choice if one wants to go down an England first we are Anglo-Saxon Folke!! route; my impression that the right has many ignorant plonkers in its ranks has been strengthened :D
I love it - I am, of course, a big fan of the Anglo-Saxons so very happy to see Aethelstan finally get some recognition.
But as I say I think this is part of the way "woke" in the UK has slightly expanded to just mean "trendy" or "new". It does make me wonder how much is just a reaction against the "new" and the risk of having to learn something new and the thinking that will cause. Moving from the story everyone knows about Elizabeth I to have to learn about some distant almost Dark Ages figure who is not on any school curriculum - at least that I've known. And that might shift cause a shift in thinking about other bits of English history - but it does take effort when it's easy to learn about the established narrative that you've known since you were a kid.
Just like learning to deal with vegans in the family wanting different options or, say, learning about the other view of Captain Cook. Old verities and the bed of received knowledge/wisdom you could rely on have been thrown out.
So, anything that makes people have to consider anything outside their intellectual comfort zone, then?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2021, 04:55:26 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 30, 2021, 03:26:41 AM
We all agree the weird fringe left wing crazies are... Well crazy. But they're not a danger.
I am certain you and I would not agree on who is a weird fringe left wing crazy and who is not.
And I sure as hell do not agree that they are just some fringe nuts.
They are changing our discourse, and silencing actual speech about important topics.
Quote from: Tyr on November 30, 2021, 05:05:44 AM
But not lunacy in the league of George Soros is funding cultural Marxism in our classrooms to turn the kids all communist.
How about a rational discussion about the 1619 project, and how it should be presented within classrooms?
Is there any reasonable discussion allowed there? I don't think there is, and it is very much because of the left's "woke" crowd shouting down anyone who dares challenge the conventional wisdom.
Reasonable, rational discussion is being shut down in the exact manner you accuse the right of doing. You say anyone shouts "woke!" at any reasonable left wing idea. Fair, and true.
But at the same time, any criticism of what you call "fringe" ideas (and what a lot of people on the left do not consider fringe at all) is shouted down as "That is just the right calling anything they don't like woke!".
QuoteHow about a rational discussion about the 1619 project, and how it should be presented within classrooms?
Is there any reasonable discussion allowed there? I don't think there is, and it is very much because of the left's "woke" crowd shouting down anyone who dares challenge the conventional wisdom.
This is the first I've heard of this project so can't comment much on it specifically.
At a glance it does seem like the kind of thing that would bring the gnashing of teeth from the anti-woke crowd.
And yes, in response that would lead to some knee jerk defensiveness from left wingers at any perceived criticism.
Again though, the core problem isn't where you think it is.
Quote
Reasonable, rational discussion is being shut down in the exact manner you accuse the right of doing. You say anyone shouts "woke!" at any reasonable left wing idea. Fair, and true.
But at the same time, any criticism of what you call "fringe" ideas (and what a lot of people on the left do not consider fringe at all) is shouted down as "That is just the right calling anything they don't like woke!".
And when you get slightly less nutty people defending the crazies because they're on the right side, etc... thats the right's culture war at work.
Quite the opposite of "Cancel culture" rather this is a kneejerk defence against cancel culture.
Again, the problem isn't "Woke". Its "Anti woke".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2021, 05:09:00 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 30, 2021, 05:05:44 AM
There we come to the problem being people on the right calling anything they don't like woke. :p
Disagree with socialised health care if you like. But it's clearly not crazy. Same too for me and privatised health care - backwards and wrong. But not lunacy in the league of George Soros is funding cultural Marxism in our classrooms to turn the kids all communist.
*We* haven't come there. You've come there because that's where you always come when this issue comes up.
You said "there's no discussion" and "we would agree on that." I'm saying there is plenty we would not agree about.
So you're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing? Or you can't actually see there is a line between "Stuff that I strongly disagree with" and "Lunacy"?
I'm pretty sure there's a host of stuff on both the right and left where we'd agree the person is crazy.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 24, 2021, 12:43:28 PM
We had a Supreme Court of only Northerners?
How many Southern judges stayed in the court after the secession of their own State? I can not find anything on it, I only a remember of a few judges who left for the State, but I can't remember where they were assigned.
However, I did find this for later:
In the midst of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase to be Chief Justice. Chase had strong anti-slavery credentials and had previously served Lincoln as Secretary of the Treasury. His post-Civil War tenure featured several key decisions affirming the indestructibility of the Union. Chase was considered highly ambitious, even for a politician. In 1872, Chase, while serving on the Supreme Court, ran for the Presidency, but his efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Chase continued to serve as Chief Justice until his death in 1873.It's clear that once the hostilities had began, Lincoln's govt packed the court to make sure there would be no ambiguities about who's the boss. Seems the Republicans are consistent in that vision. ;) :P
Quote from: grumbler on November 27, 2021, 11:29:56 AM
Viper is incorrect in any case to say that the votes on Southern secession were carried out on the same rules as the Presidential election. Only three states had such votes (Virginia, Texas, and Tennessee - which did it twice after the pro-secession folks disliked the first result). The remaining states did it as a mere piece of legislation.
Rules, not method.
Had the Southern legislature not seceded, would the North have launched an invasion of slave-states to end this despicable practice? No. Simple as that.
The people voted in their 1860 election. There was no challenge to the validity of the votes then in Southern States. There were no challenge for Maryland's elections where slaves couldn't vote. There were no challenges anywhere. Until the States seceded to protect what they saw as a huge threat to their economic future and way of life. Then suddenly, just like that, they ain't a democracy anymore.
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2021, 12:28:27 PM
How many Southern judges stayed in the court after the secession of their own State? I can not find anything on it, I only a remember of a few judges who left for the State, but I can't remember where they were assigned.
Based on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
John Catron (Democrat from Tennessee) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Catron
QuoteDespite Catron's opinion in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case and his pro-slavery stance, Catron resented the secession of his home state of Tennessee because he felt the American Union should be preserved at all costs, a reflection of his Jacksonian views. Following President Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Catron left to "ride circuit" in the states of Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky. However, when Catron attempted to return to Nashville to perform his circuit duties, he was told that his very life could be in danger due to his views. Catron was forced to flee the state of Tennessee and reside permanently in Louisville, Kentucky, away from his wife and friends, who sympathized with the Confederacy. Catron's stance on the southern rebels was to "punish treason and will."
James Moore Wayne (Democrat from Georgia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Moore_Wayne
QuoteJustice Wayne served on the Supreme Court for 32 years, one of the longest terms for any justice. His leanings stayed consistent and many of his decisions believed power resides in the federal offices such as the U.S. Congress. He held to this in the Dred Scott case, supporting Chief Justice Taney's opinion in the face of harsh criticism by many. With the beginning of the Civil War, Wayne was thrust into personal and professional crisis. He chose to remain with the Court while his own son left the U.S. Army to fight as a general in the Confederate Army. Another one of his colleagues, John Campbell, also left the Court to serve in the Confederacy. However, Wayne held to his nationalistic views, although it made him unpopular in his home state of Georgia, believing there was no legal support for a state to secede. He also felt that by remaining on the Court he could continue to support Southern causes. After the war ended, he never forgot his Southern roots and labored hard to protect the South from undue penalties.
A third resigned at the start of the war (John Archibald Campbell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Campbell )
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2021, 12:34:29 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 27, 2021, 11:29:56 AM
Viper is incorrect in any case to say that the votes on Southern secession were carried out on the same rules as the Presidential election. Only three states had such votes (Virginia, Texas, and Tennessee - which did it twice after the pro-secession folks disliked the first result). The remaining states did it as a mere piece of legislation.
Rules, not method.
Had the Southern legislature not seceded, would the North have launched an invasion of slave-states to end this despicable practice? No. Simple as that.
The people voted in their 1860 election. There was no challenge to the validity of the votes then in Southern States. There were no challenge for Maryland's elections where slaves couldn't vote. There were no challenges anywhere. Until the States seceded to protect what they saw as a huge threat to their economic future and way of life. Then suddenly, just like that, they ain't a democracy anymore.
I really ahve to assume that you are just willfully lying at this point.
I never said they were not a democracy, I said secession cannot be validated on the claim that it was a democratic process, not morally or ethically. You cannot have a vote about slavery, and then say the vote was democratic if you didn't let the slaves vote.
Whether that makes the greater polity "democratic" or not is a matter of semantics.
I've explained this SEVERAL times now, and you just go right back to pretending like you don't understand what I am saying, and argue against something else entirely - whether or not the Confederacy itself was a "democracy" or not. Which is entirely uninteresting in any way shape, or form.
Both ends of the political spectrum (here in the US) can be summed up with a single sentence.
"You disagreed with me! With ME! You are a <leftist/racist> who is only saying that because you hate <America/women> And all your views are based on little more than spite, evil, and stupidity!"
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 30, 2021, 01:12:28 PM
Both ends of the political spectrum (here in the US) can be summed up with a single sentence.
"You disagreed with me! With ME! You are a <leftist/racist> who is only saying that because you hate <America/women> And all your views are based on little more than spite, evil, and stupidity!"
One distrinction though. The right would say something like "communist" rather then "leftist" since leftist isn't actually considered bad by leftists.
The difference, however, is that
1. Racism and its legacy is actually a real problem in America,
1A. There are actual racists out there,
2. There aren't any actual communists on the left.
2A. There are some people who one could argue hate America on the left, insofar as how you define "America".
*There are still actual communists, they are just marginalized.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 30, 2021, 04:37:35 PM
*There are still actual communists, they are just marginalized.
Sure, and there are Moonies and Scientologists as well. They have about as much relevance. Not at all comparable to the number of people who are fighting against fixing racial inequality.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 30, 2021, 04:37:35 PM
*There are still actual communists, they are just marginalized.
Enough to fit in an especially large bus.
In Sweden they normally get 5-10% of the votes.
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2021, 12:34:29 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 27, 2021, 11:29:56 AM
Viper is incorrect in any case to say that the votes on Southern secession were carried out on the same rules as the Presidential election. Only three states had such votes (Virginia, Texas, and Tennessee - which did it twice after the pro-secession folks disliked the first result). The remaining states did it as a mere piece of legislation.
Rules, not method.
Had the Southern legislature not seceded, would the North have launched an invasion of slave-states to end this despicable practice? No. Simple as that.
The people voted in their 1860 election. There was no challenge to the validity of the votes then in Southern States. There were no challenge for Maryland's elections where slaves couldn't vote. There were no challenges anywhere. Until the States seceded to protect what they saw as a huge threat to their economic future and way of life. Then suddenly, just like that, they ain't a democracy anymore.
You are making a classic mistake of Southern Apologists: The cause of the war was not decided by the North. It was decided by the South. The war was fought over slavery because that is the stated reason of the Southern states. The motives of the aggressor are more important than the motives of the defender. So no, the Northern States would not invade the South absent a war. They would prefer to kill slavery through legislature. The South forced the issue when it attacked the army. I don't know how popular abolition was before the war, but as the war went on it became very popular. As Union armies encountered slaves soldiers became more and more disgusted with the practice. Such feelings reverberated through out the north.
Right, the motives of the aggressor are more important in "the war of Northern Aggression".
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2021, 05:23:46 PM
Sure, and there are Moonies and Scientologists as well. They have about as much relevance. Not at all comparable to the number of people who are fighting against fixing racial inequality.
I don't think their influence is anywhere near as comparable but I think the hard left is as alive as it's been in decades and is having a lot of inluence on debates in the left. It's through alternate media like, say, Jacobin, Tribune, Novara etc. But it's definitely there and stronger than any time I can remember (and as I say generally good because there are lots of interesting ideas from it).
Quote from: Syt on November 30, 2021, 12:37:13 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2021, 12:28:27 PM
How many Southern judges stayed in the court after the secession of their own State? I can not find anything on it, I only a remember of a few judges who left for the State, but I can't remember where they were assigned.
Based on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
John Catron (Democrat from Tennessee) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Catron
QuoteDespite Catron's opinion in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case and his pro-slavery stance, Catron resented the secession of his home state of Tennessee because he felt the American Union should be preserved at all costs, a reflection of his Jacksonian views. Following President Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Catron left to "ride circuit" in the states of Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky. However, when Catron attempted to return to Nashville to perform his circuit duties, he was told that his very life could be in danger due to his views. Catron was forced to flee the state of Tennessee and reside permanently in Louisville, Kentucky, away from his wife and friends, who sympathized with the Confederacy. Catron's stance on the southern rebels was to "punish treason and will."
James Moore Wayne (Democrat from Georgia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Moore_Wayne
QuoteJustice Wayne served on the Supreme Court for 32 years, one of the longest terms for any justice. His leanings stayed consistent and many of his decisions believed power resides in the federal offices such as the U.S. Congress. He held to this in the Dred Scott case, supporting Chief Justice Taney's opinion in the face of harsh criticism by many. With the beginning of the Civil War, Wayne was thrust into personal and professional crisis. He chose to remain with the Court while his own son left the U.S. Army to fight as a general in the Confederate Army. Another one of his colleagues, John Campbell, also left the Court to serve in the Confederacy. However, Wayne held to his nationalistic views, although it made him unpopular in his home state of Georgia, believing there was no legal support for a state to secede. He also felt that by remaining on the Court he could continue to support Southern causes. After the war ended, he never forgot his Southern roots and labored hard to protect the South from undue penalties.
A third resigned at the start of the war (John Archibald Campbell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Campbell )
thanks!
Quote from: Tyr on November 30, 2021, 11:21:00 AM
So you're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing? Or you can't actually see there is a line between "Stuff that I strongly disagree with" and "Lunacy"?
I'm pretty sure there's a host of stuff on both the right and left where we'd agree the person is crazy.
No I'm not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I'm disagreeing because I think you're wrong.
You're positing a world in which those nutty right wingers make up all kinds of nonsense, and the rest of us, "the reasonable people" agree on what is crazy woke and what is not crazy woke. I'm saying you and I don't agree on what is crazy woke and what is not crazy woke.
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2021, 12:48:31 PM
I never said they were not a democracy, I said secession cannot be validated on the claim that it was a democratic process, not morally or ethically. You cannot have a vote about slavery, and then say the vote was democratic if you didn't let the slaves vote.
That is the same.
If they can not vote on secession because it affects the status of a category of person that can not vote, then such state can not be considered a democracy in any kind of action.
States pass laws on children, yet they can't vote. States, and the Federal US government voted multiple times on the status of black people and american indian, on their rights, on where they coud live, on where they could work or not. States regulated the status of women, their rights as individuals (or rather lack of rights for the most part). All of this without any of these groups able to vote on such matters. An exemption could be made for children, assuming their parents could vote.
But the US government who captured escaped slaves in 1783 after the British left returned them to their masters as property, ignoring their emancipation by the British (one of the intolerable acts leading to the creation of your country, btw...). the black folks weren't able to vote on this matter. Those who fought for the US could not vote after the war, even if free. Those who were promised freedom in exchange of their service in the Continental army were returned to their masters if they so wished it.
And yet, the US was a democracy back then.
Quote
Whether that makes the greater polity "democratic" or not is a matter of semantics.
It not semantics, it is you changing the rules of what constitutes democracy because you have, like a majority of modern americans, a profound dislike of secession.
Quote
I've explained this SEVERAL times now, and you just go right back to pretending like you don't understand what I am saying, and argue against something else entirely - whether or not the Confederacy itself was a "democracy" or not. Which is entirely uninteresting in any way shape, or form.
It is absolutely interesting, because it is the core of your argument: the Southern States had no right to secede because they were not a democracy, since the black folks could not vote on the issue in 1860.
But the US of 1860 was a democracy, even in States that had slavery, even in States that restricted of did not allow black men to vote at all.
It is a double standard that you will refuse to admit to your grave and try to use any contorted argument to pretend your point is valid, while it is not.
The Confederate States declared their independance the same way they did all their governance. There were no specific rules enacted to deprive a group of their vote prior to the secession, it was the exact same rules they had used before to elect their assemblies and enact their votes. Some had conventions, some simply had a law. It is irrelevent in either case. The will of the State was to secede from the Union, and while we can certainly condemn the will to secede and fight to defend slavery, invading the country to crush their will of independence was just as morally wrong.
The North did not fought to end slavery or to restore voting rights to black men. The North cared only about the perpetual Union.
That's the only reason the Republicans went to war with the South, to protect the Union up to their dying breath. they didn't even think to allow Blacks to serve in the Union until after they saw free blacks fighting for the Confederacy and the slaves digging trenches and carrying ammunitions.
The will of the people was to secede. That it was not all people is irrelevant, they played by the same rules they had before. If any laws of the future Confederate States were valid in 1859, it certainly makes secession valid in 1860.
Just as the 13 colonies were justified in leaving Britain to protect their economic freedoms, just as the Texans were justified in taking up arms against Santa Anna's centralizing policies (including the abolition of slavery).
You can't claim the votes on secession were invalid because black folks weren't consulted and by the same token consider all other votes that did not include blacks to be valid. I'm pretty sure certiain most black folks were against the Jim Crow law in post Civil War southern US states. They were certainly in favour of universal voting rights in the North, yet that didn't happen for a long while. But they didn't have a say in what the States and Federal government decided for tem. No more than in the South. Yet, you consider this to be democratic. But not secession, because... of the same conditions.
You're against secession, fine. I got it the first dozen time. No need to invent frivolous arguments to defend your point. Democracy spoke, the US rejected it, just like the British a century earlier.
Some people decided to fight for their country, other moved North to fight against it. Just like some folks joined the Continental army and others fought for the British a century earlier.
There were no good guys and bad guys like a Hollywood movie. Just two sides figthing for what they believed was right. And both sides happened to be just morally wrong and corrupt as the other, for different reasons.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 30, 2021, 06:54:36 PM
Right, the motives of the aggressor are more important in "the war of Northern Aggression".
:yeahright:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 30, 2021, 07:44:29 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 30, 2021, 06:54:36 PM
Right, the motives of the aggressor are more important in "the war of Northern Aggression".
:yeahright:
Think about it though. If Cuba told us to gtfo of Gitmo and we told them to pound sand, would they be justified in taking the base by force?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 30, 2021, 07:50:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 30, 2021, 07:44:29 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 30, 2021, 06:54:36 PM
Right, the motives of the aggressor are more important in "the war of Northern Aggression".
:yeahright:
Think about it though. If Cuba told us to gtfo of Gitmo and we told them to pound sand, would they be justified in taking the base by force?
No. What is the point?
EDIT: "What is the point of this question?" Sorry, my original statement wasn't clear.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2021, 07:07:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2021, 05:23:46 PM
Sure, and there are Moonies and Scientologists as well. They have about as much relevance. Not at all comparable to the number of people who are fighting against fixing racial inequality.
I don't think their influence is anywhere near as comparable but I think the hard left is as alive as it's been in decades and is having a lot of inluence on debates in the left. It's through alternate media like, say, Jacobin, Tribune, Novara etc. But it's definitely there and stronger than any time I can remember (and as I say generally good because there are lots of interesting ideas from it).
The "hard left" != Communists
Quote from: viper37 on November 30, 2021, 07:41:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2021, 12:48:31 PM
I never said they were not a democracy, I said secession cannot be validated on the claim that it was a democratic process, not morally or ethically. You cannot have a vote about slavery, and then say the vote was democratic if you didn't let the slaves vote.
That is the same.
If they can not vote on secession because it affects the status of a category of person that can not vote, then such state can not be considered a democracy in any kind of action.
OK, but that isn't the question, as you know. The question is whether you can or should make the MORAL and ETHICAL argument that such a vote is "democratic". Which you have when you claimed that secession was valid and ought to be respected because it was arrived at democratically. That is not true, it was not.
Quote
States pass laws on children, yet they can't vote. States, and the Federal US government voted multiple times on the status of black people and american indian, on their rights, on where they coud live, on where they could work or not. States regulated the status of women, their rights as individuals (or rather lack of rights for the most part). All of this without any of these groups able to vote on such matters. An exemption could be made for children, assuming their parents could vote.
But the US government who captured escaped slaves in 1783 after the British left returned them to their masters as property, ignoring their emancipation by the British (one of the intolerable acts leading to the creation of your country, btw...). the black folks weren't able to vote on this matter. Those who fought for the US could not vote after the war, even if free. Those who were promised freedom in exchange of their service in the Continental army were returned to their masters if they so wished it.
And yet, the US was a democracy back then.
ANd yet, one could not morally claim that the US laws on slavery were arrived at democratically, even if you want to call the US a democracy. THis is not hard, and yet you keep repeating the same mistake.
Quote
Quote
Whether that makes the greater polity "democratic" or not is a matter of semantics.
It not semantics, it is you changing the rules of what constitutes democracy because you have, like a majority of modern americans, a profound dislike of secession.
No, I have a profound dislike for people who justify the protection of human chattel slavery by blithely stating that such choices were "democratic".
My position has absolutely nothing to do with any views I have on secession.
Fair but some of them would say they are literal communists - Ash Sarkar famously (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD7Ol0gz11k) or the whole (inane) fully automated luxury communism thing.
But many of them I think would identify with the Marxist democratic socialist tradition which is looking beyond capitalism so not communist, but certainly not gradual change/amelioration social democrats either.
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2021, 08:02:34 PM
OK, but that isn't the question, as you know. The question is whether you can or should make the MORAL and ETHICAL argument that such a vote is "democratic". Which you have when you claimed that secession was valid and ought to be respected because it was arrived at democratically. That is not true, it was not.
I am discussing about facts. What is MORAL and ETHICAL will vary according to time and place.
I would certainly view slavery as IMMORAL,
today. I certainly view any breach of equality in front of the law as UNETHICAL. In 1857, Dredd vs Scott, the SCOTUS made the argument that Black people weren't US citizens and therefore had no rights. It certainly created problems back them, and I'm pretty sure we could dig journal articles and editorials denouncing this. But it was a view widely accepted in the US at the time. It was certainly MORAL by this time and place, South or North, East or West. I could quote Union generals, certainly opposed to slavery, who were appalled at the idea that Blacks and White would be considered equal. Even worst, I'd be hard pressed to find a majority of white folks willing to live in mixed neighborhood.
It was certainly ETHICAL back then to discriminate about people of color. No politician would have lost its job for saying black and whites shouldn't live together. Lincoln wanted to deport them to Africa because he didn't believe they could live together. Back in the 19th century, it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow of anyone to denigrate Jews. With good reasons, today, we find these things unethical and immoral.
You and I would find it immoral to see a woman forced to walk behind her husband. But in some countries, today, it would be considered immoral not to.
There are certainly people in our country who would find sex outside of marriage to be unethical and immoral. Not so long ago, adultery was a crime. So was homosexuality. Both were considered immoral. Times changes, it's no longer the case.
Should we view people opposed to homosexuality or women's equality throughout history as immoral and unethical? They would certainly be today's standards. An openly antisemitic politician in the US or Canada would get zero chances of being elected to office today. Yet, some of our greatest politicians were antisemitic throughout history.
I would certainly view waging war against the American Indians nations to steal their lands, regularly break the signed treaties, confine them to small reservations where they would starve to be unethical and immoral.
Past US Presidents, British governors & Canadian Prime Ministers did not have any problem doing that. British and Canadians had no problems expelling French & Indians from their lands so it could be used by good Anglo-Saxon Protestant White folks. Some of these people are venerated by our history, they have statues, streets, monuments, buildings, schools, counties named after them. The guy who said French Canadians should be assimilated for their own good is viewed as a hero, the founder of Canadian democracy. Schools and counties are named for him. As of not so long ago, Montreal had a statue of a Prime Minister whose greatest achievement was to be one of Canada's founding fathers. And starving Indians so Canada could then claim their lands.
It was totally ethical by then. He was certainly regarded as very moral individual in his time and long after.
Quote
ANd yet, one could not morally claim that the US laws on slavery were arrived at democratically, even if you want to call the US a democracy. THis is not hard, and yet you keep repeating the same mistake.
You would have to make the argument that the United States was not a democracy until it abolished slavery then. Because the people of the US could have abolished slavery at any time they so chose. Some States did it, after all, once slavery became an insignificant portion of their economy. They still didn't gave the right to vote to most of these former slaves though. they certainly did not preach for equality of both 'races'.
The people of the United States did not vote on a number of things that predated their becoming a country. Again, would you make the argument that everything the US did before 1865 was immoral and unethical? Would you extend it up until universal voting rights became a thing in all States?
Slavery existed since before the first British colony in America. American Indians practiced slavery among them, capturing other nations warriors, women and children during war expeditions. Some of them later switched to owning African Americans like the other Americans.
Spanish had slaves, French had slaves, British had slaves. Obviously, by its very definition, a slave has no freedom of choice. The institution itself depends on the will of the governing body of the territory. The British colonies had their own parliaments and could have legally legislated against slavery within the limits of their colonies without the British sending its army to beat them down. But they didn't do it when they had the opportunity to do so.
When removed entirely from the overseeing for the British government, again, all of the 13 colonies could have abolished slavery right then. They have full autonomy on the subject. France would not have invaded the US if they abolished slavery in their country. England couldn't care less anymore. Portugal certainly didn't care. Neither did Spain.
But the people of the United States chose not to abolish slavery.
Ergo, by your argument, the US was not a democracy after winning its war of independence because it chose to NOT abolish slavery when it could very well have done so without any external repercussions.
Slavery had been mostly legal in Europe since Roman times, mostly abandoned in favor of serfdom, and revived once Europeans started exploring Africa and developing sugar crops, and later tobacco and cotton, labor-intensive form of agriculture.
I am unsure when&if the Republic of Rome's Senate voted to legalize slavery. I don't think they ever did, mostly, they regulated its practice, but I doubt there was any law voted like, "today, we will treat conquered people as our slaves and they will be property to be sold" with a complex set of rule.
Therefore, the point that no democracy ever voted to specifically legalize slavery is kinda moot. Slavery was the "natural" state of many individuals, imposed against their will, for various reasons, and States regulated it away under certain circumstances, but afaik, never specifically voted to make it so in the first place. It existed since dawn of history, various cultures and their successor states integrated it in their practice, when they expanded outside of their home territory, they brought their practice with them and so it did not have to be legislated, like so many other things. You would be hard pressed to find a law in the old British colonies that explicitly states that a settler has the right to own a house on a piece of land he owns. First, there was the house. Then there were the laws surrounding it.
Same for slavery. It existed, it got legislated about in various ways until the governments decided they no longer needed it. They could have done so at any time since they brought the first slave to America. They chose not to, until very late in their history.
Therefore it is as democratic as indentured servitude (despite being very different in nature, since it's time limited), as democratic as any act passed by colonial assemblies before 1776, as democratic as the 13 colonies seceding from their motherland because they wanted to expand and protect the institution of slavery, among other things. I mean, I ain't teaching you anything here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerable_Acts) But you are obsessed over the presumed illegality of secession and are trying to find any kind of rationale to make it immoral per see, while it is not in itself.
I would certainly view, today, in 2021, half the US States seceding to reinstate slavery, as immoral. Just as I would if they seceded to impose a Christian theocracy as form of governance. Now, there are issues about voter suppression arising everywhere in those States, but assuming that was not the case, if they seceded after the election of Kamala Harris, I would respect their vote, as misguided and immoral as I think it is. Because that is the essence of democracy, to respect the will of the majority.
Quote
No, I have a profound dislike for people who justify the protection of human chattel slavery by blithely stating that such choices were "democratic".
Since the Union did not wage war to end human chattel slavery and since I do not support it, nor did I ever claim chattel slavery was an expression of democracy, I'll assume you are just trying to provoke me into some kind of childish flame war.
Quote
My position has absolutely nothing to do with any views I have on secession.
Of course it does. Secession is evil therefore undemocratic therefore you find arguments to make it fit, reinventing what a democracy means specifically for the States that chose to secede and applying 21st century moral and ethics to the mid 19th century. Not having the right to vote in the South means the State is not a democracy, but not having the right to vote in the North is meaningless. It is ok to believe the "black race is inferior to the white race" if you are against slavery, but it's evil if you are against slavery but believe it's doing more harm on the white men than on the black men. It's ok to believe the black people should be deported from the US if you are personally anti-slavery. It's ok to wage war on a newly formed country that wants to protect its economic institution, but its totally unjust to wage war on a newly formed country that wants to expand across lands set aside for non WASP settlers. You would certainly have fought against the British Crown, since it was an unjust government promising freedom to black slaves, protected lands from natives and Catholics, but you would have fought against you own family for defending the institution of slavery. You would have had no problem fighting in the Indian wars since they were in the way of US expansion, but you totally hate the white supremacist who wanted to expand through their territory and have contempt for anyone who believe it is antidemocratic to secede but you also believe it is totally democratic to invade another country and dispossess its people.
I find it weird, very disturbing, in fact, given all our previous discussions here and on Paradox OT. But I think it's pointless to discuss this any further. We have said all that is to be said on the subject. Let's agree to disagree and we'll refrain from discussion such contentious issues in the future.
Have a good night. :)
Thanks! I will continue to call you out when you defend human chattel slavery on the basis that "Gee, the decision was arrived at democratically though!"
And no, you don't get to tell me what I think about secession. Your little rant there is so far off the mark from what I think about secession in general it is downright amusing. You just string together one strawman after another and insist that is my view, even after I rather clearly state that I don't think that - whatever.
Indian Wars? WTF are you babbling about?
Quote from: viper37 on November 25, 2021, 12:02:33 PM
A citizen can not "secede" from its country. A region can. A citizen can not organize elections. A citizen is not sovereign, even if you had a micro-nation on an abandoned oil platform, Minsky the country would be sovereign, not Minsky the citizen of the Minsky country.
I used the example of an individual because you used the analogy of a divorce proceeding to secession. I agree that an individual can't secede but for the same reasons the analogy of a marriage and a property settlement in divorce is not applicable to secession of a breakaway region.
It seems to me that your argument overall lacks coherence. Your claim is that "a region" can secede, but what defines a region? The American South? The State of Delaware? Dixville Notch, NH? My local school district? Any of these entities are capable of "organizing elections" - in fact all of them do (except of course "The South"). The implicit claim is that a region can secede because it is "sovereign" but that is circular. In the specific US example, individual US states have recognized sovereign attributes, but only in the particular context of a constitutional system that denies the right of states to secede without permission from the others - thus a US state that attempted to secede would be repudiating the basis of the very sovereignty that supposedly undergirds its right to secede. As for "regions" - that is a concept that has no status in America, much less a sovereign one,
Quote
Had Scotland seceded from Great Britain and the UK sent is army to occupy all offshore platforms and military bases, do you believe Scotland should just had accepted that they lost on this, and life goes on and all? Thankfully, they negotiated like grown ups before the referendum.
My understanding is that North Sea oil rights are owned by private operators. Presumably underlying ownership of the sites would be governed by application of usual international law, including the LOS convention and thus I would guess an independent Scotland would obtain royalty and taxation rights with respect to sites within their economic zone.
UK military bases and other UK government property OTOH would and should remain under UK control until or unless an agreement was reached over their disposition.
I would also point out the the justice and right of Quebec's case for independence - which I suspect may be a factor driving the intellectual juggling act here - rises and falls on its own merits. The justice of the cause of the Southern Confederacy has nothing to do with it, and from a practical point of view of presenting a persuasive and politically attractive case, it seems to be very much NOT in the interest of partisans of an independent Quebec to draw close analogies to such a notoriously racist historical regime. Just as if I were an American neocon making the case for a preventative war against an increasingly dangerous adversary, I would hesitate to use the 1939 invasion of Poland as my illustrative example.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 01, 2021, 10:49:42 AM
My understanding is that North Sea oil rights are owned by private operators. Presumably underlying ownership of the sites would be governed by application of usual international law, including the LOS convention and thus I would guess an independent Scotland would obtain royalty and taxation rights with respect to sites within their economic zone.
UK military bases and other UK government property OTOH would and should remain under UK control until or unless an agreement was reached over their disposition.
Although both are really important to the story of Scottish nationalism.
Before oil Scottish nationalism was a little bit cultural nationalist - one of the founders of the SNP flirted pretty heavily with fascism. Historically they were strongest in rural, very conservative areas. This is when they were nicknamed tartan Tories. Oil transformed that. There was a movement of more left-wing civic nationalism in the 70s but it got a huge shot in the arm from oil because they just made the argument about "Scotland's oil" and that Scottish people not Westminster should decide what to do with that windfall. All throught he 80s Thatcher used it to cut taxes and the deficit, while the left of the SNP took over arguing that it could finance a new, better more social democratic Scotland that was - allegedly, in their argument, the authentic Scotland not Thatcher's ideology. And central in that effort is Alex Salmond who, before he was in politics, was an oil economist for RBS and even in 2014 the SNP's economic case for independence was heavily based on a high oil price and new discoveries. I think they're now trying to pivot from that because of climate change and Salmond moved on to speaking of Scotland's goal to become the "Saudi Arabia of wind" :lol:
Similarly on military bases a large galvanising feature of Scottish nationalism is based around opposition to Faslane base where the UK nuclear submarines are based. The SNP have joined with the anti-nuclear movement so want to get rid of Faslane. Again a huge part of energising the SNP in the 80s when you have the wider European peace movement. Apparently there's no other base that's suitable at this point so among other options in the event of independence the UK is apparently looking at whether they can do a Guantanamo and get a 99 year lease on Faslane (very unlikely), or they're looking at asking to base the subs in the US until a new base is built.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 01, 2021, 10:58:43 AM
I would also point out the the justice and right of Quebec's case for independence - which I suspect may be a factor driving the intellectual juggling act here - rises and falls on its own merits. The justice of the cause of the Southern Confederacy has nothing to do with it, and from a practical point of view of presenting a persuasive and politically attractive case, it seems to be very much NOT in the interest of partisans of an independent Quebec to draw close analogies to such a notoriously racist historical regime. Just as if I were an American neocon making the case for a preventative war against an increasingly dangerous adversary, I would hesitate to use the 1939 invasion of Poland as my illustrative example.
I considered making this point, but viper doesn't seem like one for nuance.
He keeps going on about how everyone is opposed to secession as some kind of matter of principle. Which of course is not true.
I think there are certainly cases where it makes sense and is defensible morally and ethically.
I don't know too much about Quebec, but just going by what I've seen from him, I have to assume the nuanced argument for its secession must be incredibly weak if you have to fall back on some kind of "all secession is valid as long as there was some kind of vote, just like the Confederacy!" as your best possible argument.
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2021, 02:02:22 PM
I considered making this point, but viper doesn't seem like one for nuance.
:lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 01, 2021, 10:58:43 AMJust as if I were an American neocon making the case for a preventative war against an increasingly dangerous adversary, I would hesitate to use the 1939 invasion of Poland as my illustrative example.
I dunno, if the Allies had invaded when Germany remilitarized the Rhineland it would have probably been a much shorter war.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 01, 2021, 04:47:50 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 01, 2021, 10:58:43 AMJust as if I were an American neocon making the case for a preventative war against an increasingly dangerous adversary, I would hesitate to use the 1939 invasion of Poland as my illustrative example.
I dunno, if the Allies had invaded when Germany remilitarized the Rhineland it would have probably been a much shorter war.
True, but it wouldn't have been a preventative war. Violation of that treaty provides CB.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 01, 2021, 04:47:50 PM
I dunno, if the Allies had invaded when Germany remilitarized the Rhineland it would have probably been a much shorter war.
Isn't he talking aout Poland as the increasingly dangerous adversary?
I know that the USSR leadership in the 30s were very focused on the risk from Poland - which seems crazy now, but they weren't far from Poland fighting and winning on all fronts and surviving the Soviet invasion.
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2021, 05:33:12 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 01, 2021, 04:47:50 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 01, 2021, 10:58:43 AMJust as if I were an American neocon making the case for a preventative war against an increasingly dangerous adversary, I would hesitate to use the 1939 invasion of Poland as my illustrative example.
I dunno, if the Allies had invaded when Germany remilitarized the Rhineland it would have probably been a much shorter war.
True, but it wouldn't have been a preventative war. Violation of that treaty provides CB.
I've always wondered how realistic a war over Rhineland remilitarization would have been . You can say that there was a legal justification, but legal justification alone cannot practically justify a war. If Dutch launched a naval invasion on the Isles of Scilly in 1980, they would probably not be justified despite a state of war existing at the time.
Quote from: DGuller on December 01, 2021, 09:36:34 PM
I've always wondered how realistic a war over Rhineland remilitarization would have been . You can say that there was a legal justification, but legal justification alone cannot practically justify a war. If Dutch launched a naval invasion on the Isles of Scilly in 1980, they would probably not be justified despite a state of war existing at the time.
War over the Rhineland would have been very realistic for the men who fought in it and their families.
I did not say that there was "legal justification" for the Allies to attack Germany over violation of the Versailles Treaty, I said that there was a
causus belli. German violation of the treaty was an act of war, and the war that resulted would not be a preventative war. The War in Iraq would be an example of what was claimed to be a preventative war.
And I'm interested to learn why and how a state of war existed between the UK and the Netherlands in 1980.
I just Googled for the first example of an "oops, we forgot you existed 300 years ago when we signed peace treaty" war. :blush: The existence of Isles of Scilly came as a surprise to me as well earlier today.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 01, 2021, 05:43:02 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 01, 2021, 04:47:50 PM
I dunno, if the Allies had invaded when Germany remilitarized the Rhineland it would have probably been a much shorter war.
Isn't he talking aout Poland as the increasingly dangerous adversary?
More about prompting a war vs Poland plus its guarantors at a time and under conditions favorable to Germany as opposed to waiting for Britains rearm program to develop further.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-59494786
QuoteLinlithgow pub changes name over 'racist connotations'
A Linlithgow pub has announced plans to change its name from The Black Bitch to The Black Hound.
Its owners, the Greene King chain, said the existing name has "racist and offensive connotations".
Some locals have started a petition to keep the name saying it is an important part of local folklore in the West Lothian town.
It comes from a legend about a black greyhound who swam to an island on a loch with food for her stranded owner.
But Greene King told BBC Scotland's Drivetime that language had changed, so it was appropriate to change the pub's name.
Operations manager for Scotland, Paul Wishart, said: "To put it into context, you wouldn't call a new business today The Black Bitch.
He said the company had researched the name, and people "felt the name carried racist and offensive connotations".
He said this was true of groups who both knew and did not know the pub's history.
He said the business wanted to be "anti-racist, inclusive and promote diversity", so he felt strongly that the name change was necessary.
Mr Wishart added: "We know that name was not originally racist or offensive. But its meaning over time has changed.
"The grouping of those two words together can be deemed, in today's language, as racist and offensive."
He said the legend of the black greyhound would still be referenced in its new name.
According to the local myth, the female dog's owner was chained to an oak tree on an island in Linlithgow Loch to starve to death as a punishment for a crime.
The dog would swim over at night with food and water to keep him alive.
The locals - proud of the dog's loyalty and bravery - adopted a symbol of a greyhound in front of an oak tree as the town's coat of arms.
Mr Wishart added: "We are aware of pub's history. We're aware of where the name originates.
"The proposal to change the name to The Black Hound will still reflect that history."
He added that the coat of arms and the image on the pub's sign would be retained. However, changing the pub's sign would have to go through the planning process, Mr Wishart said.
Alan Snedden, who signed a petition to keep the original name, said there was "absolutely no racist connotation at all in the term".
He said people "from and born in Linlithgow are actually called black bitches and it's seen as a very high term of honour within the town".
He could understand to an extent how it could appear to be a racist term, he said, however: "The brewery are trying to be politically correct but not taking into account the history that's steeped within Linlithgow regarding the black bitch."
He urged Greene King not to change the name.
I wonder how many people will assume that the Hound is male.
Quote from: DGuller on December 01, 2021, 11:15:30 PM
I just Googled for the first example of an "oops, we forgot you existed 300 years ago when we signed peace treaty" war. :blush: The existence of Isles of Scilly came as a surprise to me as well earlier today.
The "335 Year War" was a PR stunt by the islands' local council. The UK/England and the Netherlands have had wars, but that wasn't one of them.
Quote from: The Brain on December 02, 2021, 04:27:01 AM
I wonder how many people will assume that the Hound is male.
To elaborate, I think The Brave Bitch would have been a cooler option. Kept the dog female and kept the alliteration initials.
It is very unjust that they've disguised the gender of a legendary dog.
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2021, 08:02:48 AM
It is very unjust that they've disguised the gender of a legendary dog.
Obviously, or you wouldn't have posted it as an example of a problem with cancel culture.
Black bitches represent.
:o
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 01, 2021, 10:49:42 AM
It seems to me that your argument overall lacks coherence. Your claim is that "a region" can secede, but what defines a region?
Generally speaking, a region part of a supra-organization with its own laws governing its territory.
The United Kingdom had the right to secede from the European Union just as Scotland would have the right to secede from the United Kingdom, if the people living in these States are willing to vote on the issue.
Edinburgh could not secede from Scotland on its own, nor could Yorktown decide on its own to join an independent Scotland.
Cities typically have only very limited sovereignty, which are only devolved by the central authority.
And Indian reservation in Canada could declare its independence over the territory it administers, but there not lies the problem.
Quote
The American South? The State of Delaware? Dixville Notch, NH? My local school district? Any of these entities are capable of "organizing elections" - in fact all of them do (except of course "The South"). The implicit claim is that a region can secede because it is "sovereign" but that is circular.
"The South" is used as a shortcut. Individual States, who once banded together to form the United States decided to pack and leave the Union. Then, they decided to form a new entity called the Confederate States of America.
Quote
In the specific US example, individual US states have recognized sovereign attributes, but only in the particular context of a constitutional system that denies the right of states to secede without permission from the others -
If that was the case, all former Confederate politicians, civil servants, army officers or enlisted men would have been arrested and tried for treason. It wasn't so because the Federal government knew it was on shaky ground and could very well lose the case, which would justify the rebellion of the States.
Quote
thus a US state that attempted to secede would be repudiating the basis of the very sovereignty that supposedly undergirds its right to secede. As for "regions" - that is a concept that has no status in America, much less a sovereign one,
I used "region" because elsewhere, it might be "province", "autonomous territory", "territory", "republic", "colony" or any other label.
Quote
My understanding is that North Sea oil rights are owned by private operators. Presumably underlying ownership of the sites would be governed by application of usual international law, including the LOS convention and thus I would guess an independent Scotland would obtain royalty and taxation rights with respect to sites within their economic zone.
Scotland would receive 100% of the royalties for the oil. The British government could decide it does not want to share, does not recognize Scottish sovereignty, or decides to nationalize the entire oil industry.
What I've been told repeatedly on this forum is that in international law, might makes right.
Quote
UK military bases and other UK government property OTOH would and should remain under UK control until or unless an agreement was reached over their disposition.
And that's what grown ups do: negotiate. Not stall, not lie, not say one thing and do the other.
I find it hard to blame one's side only for starting a war when the other did everything it could to let the fire spread.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2021, 01:31:57 PM
Secondly there's a history podcast with Dominic Sandbrook and Tom Holland called the Rest is History, which is very fun.
This has been one of my faves over the past several months. Always great banter and content as well. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 01, 2021, 10:58:43 AM
I would also point out the the justice and right of Quebec's case for independence - which I suspect may be a factor driving the intellectual juggling act here - rises and falls on its own merits. The justice of the cause of the Southern Confederacy has nothing to do with it, and from a practical point of view of presenting a persuasive and politically attractive case, it seems to be very much NOT in the interest of partisans of an independent Quebec to draw close analogies to such a notoriously racist historical regime.
The analogy was done by many others, not me.
I only said a region (read: State, Province, etc) has the right to democratically secede. I compared the Secession of the Confederacy to that of the US from the British Empire and Texas' secession from Mexico. Both had economic reasons to secede, and some political ones over the degree of centralization the State should have.
I advocated that the reasons where one secede are irrelevant, only the manner in which it does it is relevant.
Say, if Crimea had voted to secede from Ukraine on its own, I would think it's up to the people there to make their choice. But a referendum organized by the Russian army after they had invaded the region is not democracy. That and the use of terrorism to achieve one's goal are pretty much the only limitations I would impose on a State's rights to leave a Union.
Ideally, in all cases, the central authority and the entity willing to accede sit and discuss matters. Like the UK and EU, like UK and Scotland. Others prefer to send in the army to arrest everyone participating in an election, or lament the fact that not everyone was executed.
QuoteJust as if I were an American neocon making the case for a preventative war against an increasingly dangerous adversary, I would hesitate to use the 1939 invasion of Poland as my illustrative example.
I would use the lack of a preemptive strike against Germany in 1936-37 and the following 50 million casualties as a good justification for a preemptive strike.
Psst.
In his analogy, he is putting you in Hitlers chair, not the allies.
Quote from: viper37 on December 02, 2021, 12:47:07 PM
Generally speaking, a region part of a supra-organization with its own laws governing its territory.
That doesn't seem to be a very precise demarcation but I suppose YMMV. Most cities for example have laws governing their own territories, executive and legislative authorities, and even paramilitary forces.
QuoteIf that was the case, all former Confederate politicians, civil servants, army officers or enlisted men would have been arrested and tried for treason. It wasn't so because the Federal government knew it was on shaky ground and could very well lose the case, which would justify the rebellion of the States.
It had nothing to do with that. Andrew Johnson advocated quick reconciliation and a soft reconstruction for political reasons and because of practical expediency; he issued a general amnesty and then pardons on condition of an oath a loyalty. But the amnesty and pardons presumed that the rebels had committed criminal acts for which pardons were required. There was no "case" to lose, and the only Supreme Court case that really touched on these issues - Texas v. White - ruled that Texas's declaration of succession was a nullity because states did not have the legal right to secede.
Quote
What I've been told repeatedly on this forum is that in international law, might makes right.
You shouldn't believe everything you're told :)
QuoteAnd that's what grown ups do: negotiate.
Sure. But some initial negotiating positions are stronger than others.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 02, 2021, 02:42:31 PM
That doesn't seem to be a very precise demarcation but I suppose YMMV. Most cities for example have laws governing their own territories, executive and legislative authorities, and even paramilitary forces.
Like, I said, it depends on the local name.
In Canada, it would be a province. Provinces joined together to form a supra-entity, the Federal government and delegated some of their authority (way too much ;) ) to that entity. Technically, in our case, it's a British parliament law, but whatever.
In the US, it would be a State. In Fance, it would be a department, even though France is supposedly indivisible. Algeria was considered part of France, an indivisible part. Until it wasn't anymore and France let them go, after a referendum, following a bloody war. My opinion is that instead of all this bloodshed, Algerians should have been democratically consulted before it reached the state of war. But most French citizens of the 50s reacted like good imperialists and went to war to prevent that, like other European powers. The vast difference was the status of French Algeria, as an integral part of the country, instead of a colony like Indochina.
Quote
It had nothing to do with that. Andrew Johnson advocated quick reconciliation and a soft reconstruction for political reasons and because of practical expediency; he issued a general amnesty and then pardons on condition of an oath a loyalty. But the amnesty and pardons presumed that the rebels had committed criminal acts for which pardons were required. There was no "case" to lose, and the only Supreme Court case that really touched on these issues - Texas v. White - ruled that Texas's declaration of succession was a nullity because states did not have the legal right to secede.
That came after the war, after the general amnesty, IIRC.
Quote
You shouldn't believe everything you're told :)
I shall never listen again to Canadian Jewish lawyers on Languish. :P
Quote
Sure. But some initial negotiating positions are stronger than others.
Scotland and Catalonia were in similar positions. I don't think we could find a written article in the British constitution that allows Wales, or England, or Scotland or Northern Ireland to declare its independence, no more than Spain's constitution does.
Spain chose to send the army to fight democracy. Great Britain sat down and negotiated how things could go, made empty promises that it never intended to keep (max devo), but that's still democracy speaking.
Had the British army been sent to occupy Scotland, I don't think they could have resurrected William Wallace and Robert the Bruce to fight back :P
England had the most to lose there, by allowing a referendum. Yet it did.
The European Union, however, did not have much to lose by letting the UK go. They could have easily played hardball with England, refusing to negotiate, adopting a take it or leave it attitude. But they sat down, for many months, years even, to negotiate an agreement.
It's not everyday that I praise the mighty British Empire, so take it. :P
In the case of the Confederacy, it's clear Lincoln did not want to negotiate with the Southern States. At all. It had nothing to do with slavery, if it had, he would have decreed its abolition all over the US right after being sworn in.
From there, really, when you have the popular will to secede and the central entity refuses to let you go, what is the appropriate recourse, in the context of the mid 19th century? Plead their case to the UN? :P
The Southern States wanted to secede, the North did not want them to leave. The rest is pretty much irrelevant. No union should be perpetual, just like no constitution or any kind of law should be perpetual.
The British Empire was supposed to be perpetual, always expanding, never retreating. The myth of US independence is pretty much your country fighting against tyranny. We could sit down and analyze the causes of US bid for independence. We could analyze each and every intolerable acts. We could do as Berkut does and look at it with 21st century eyes. We would reach a vastly different conclusion than the Americans of 1776 did. And it would be irrelevant. America decided it was time to leave the British Empire, they left. End of story.
Wait, in Canada the power of the government is derived from the consent of the provinces?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2021, 02:02:31 PM
Did You Kay miss out on politically correct? Seems that's what they're using woke to mean.
What I mean by just generally things the author/Daily Mail dislikes. There's a headline today : "Forget fancy floral displays...eco-friendly wild hedges rule as Britain in Bloom goes woke" :lol:
So we can add the Royal Horticultural Society/British tourism award for the town or village with the best floral displays and hedges to the list of things the Daily Mail considers woke.
The whole "woke" issue is an example, like "pants" or "chips," of the US and UK simply having common-sounding and common-spelled words that have very different meanings
The joke of cancel culture has passed its peak I think.
Last night flipping through the channels I stumbled on the local news summing up the stories for the night. One was "Cancel culture bites as new covid wave pushes companies to call off Xmas parties"
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2021, 06:38:58 PM
Whatever the term for something, two things are going to be a constant. If the term is applied to something that is legitimately dumb, then the term is going to become pejorative almost by definition. It's hard for a term to be positive when it's associated with something legitimately non-positive. The second thing is that if a term becomes pejorative, it will also be abused by those who want to tar non-stupid things with it.
If we are to have effective discussion, hopefully so that we can address the legitimately dumb things, we can't be sidetracked by these two things happening. They're always going to happen. We'll never get to have an effective discussion if we can't get past "oh, no, you used the same term that some Nazi used". Whatever term is going to come after "PC" or "woke" is going to live through exactly the same dynamic, so let's just get over it.
But I think this underestimates the power in the way words are used in politics very deliberately. It's why I think most of these words don't work is because they are very often defined by their opponents who can use it for anything - see the Mail's expansive interpretation. That doesn't mean we don't discuss it, it just means the first step is defining it and trying to get a common understanding of what it is. I think it's similar to the way Republicans/the right managed to discredit the concept of "liberalism" and "liberals" for a very long time (and look where that got us :P).
So an example isn't specifically wokeness but there is a discourse on the right that wokeness is basically a new religion. I don't entirely disagree with it - in that I think there is clearly something from a strand of American identity of a perfectible world in wokeness and that probably comes from the Puritan wing. I also think there is something of the character of a reformation in the cultural shift since the 60s in the US and the West more generally.
But in the hands of the American right when they're saying wokeness is a religion I don't think that's the point they're making. I think what they're trying to do is say therefore wokeness backed by Federal, State and City governments is a state-imposed/backed religious morality - in other words they did it first. And so because left/progressives/liberals have abandoned the founding and the first amendment all bets are off to "save" it.
That idea is interesting and could be worth talking about - but I don't think that's the purpose the idea is serving for the American right, and it's similar with the way they are themselves defining wokeness.
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2021, 04:06:56 AM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-59494786
A slightly fuller Guardian article on this and I'm not sure - I can definitely see both sides here. What's quite nice is it feels like all of the people can too and are being thoughtful in their responses:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/21/linlithgow-campaigners-fight-against-renaming-of-black-bitch-pub
How on earth are they pinning that one on wokeness?
Remove a word which these days is mostly just known a a swear word... Is being against swearing woke now? As someone fine with swearing am I anti woke?
Really shows the meaningless of the term.
The comments are stupid too "it's not racist it's about loyalty and preserverance!" - and hound doesn't do this as well as bitch?
Blackie Boy in Newcastle I think is a better example. Though it looks equally awful for the anti woke cult.
I can see being annoyed your pub is having its name changed. That's different from running a campaign to fight the change.
Quote from: Tyr on December 21, 2021, 10:50:03 AM
How on earth are they pinning that one on wokeness?
Remove a word which these days is mostly just known a a swear word... Is being against swearing woke now? As someone fine with swearing am I anti woke?
Really shows the meaningless of the term.
The comments are stupid too "it's not racist it's about loyalty and preserverance!" - and hound doesn't do this as well as bitch?
Blackie Boy in Newcastle I think is a better example. Though it looks equally awful for the anti woke cult.
That article literally doesn't include the word "woke" and it was a female dog! Like Greyfriars Bobby (Scotland clearly loves a story about a loyal dog :lol:). Maybe if I'd posted a Daily Mail take any of this would make sense, but that's not really the Guardian's angle or any of the campaigners angle on this.
I'm not sure if the Newcastle one is a better example because it absolutely could just be about local blacksmiths. But I wouldn't bet folding money on that about any pub that's had that name, in a port city in the UK, since the late 18th/early 19th century.
This seems a far more legit example because it's a story in Linlithgow since the 13th century. It's on the town crest. It has a very specific local connotation and I'm sure lots of schoolkids have giggled at the possibility of swearing (just like with Dirty Dicks on Liverpool Street or any of the hundreds of something "cock" pubs), but that's not what it means.
I was referring to the story in general rather than just this article. Earlier something was posted about it being a nasty woke move.
The Newcastle one was only named Blackie boy in the 80s iirc, purportedly about a blacksmith yes, and its name change was to something totally different as part of a refurb...still had the cult in hysterics.
This one they're keeping the black and the meaning and merely changing the swear word.
Quote from: Tyr on December 21, 2021, 10:50:03 AM
How on earth are they pinning that one on wokeness?
Remove a word which these days is mostly just known a a swear word... Is being against swearing woke now? As someone fine with swearing am I anti woke?
Really shows the meaningless of the term.
The comments are stupid too "it's not racist it's about loyalty and preserverance!" - and hound doesn't do this as well as bitch?
Blackie Boy in Newcastle I think is a better example. Though it looks equally awful for the anti woke cult.
It's not the swearing, it's the racial aspect.
Here's a question for you Squeeze, if this particular story is not about wokeness, doesn't that mean that other stories can in fact be about wokeness, and therefore wokeness is a thing?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2021, 12:54:29 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 21, 2021, 10:50:03 AM
How on earth are they pinning that one on wokeness?
Remove a word which these days is mostly just known a a swear word... Is being against swearing woke now? As someone fine with swearing am I anti woke?
Really shows the meaningless of the term.
The comments are stupid too "it's not racist it's about loyalty and preserverance!" - and hound doesn't do this as well as bitch?
Blackie Boy in Newcastle I think is a better example. Though it looks equally awful for the anti woke cult.
It's not the swearing, it's the racial aspect.
It seems to be the swearing to me. Black is staying. Just bitch is changing to hound.
Quote
Here's a question for you Squeeze, if this particular story is not about wokeness, doesn't that mean that other stories can in fact be about wokeness, and therefore wokeness is a thing?
I don't get the question
Yes. If there was an article about lions saying they are dogs that wouldn't necessarily mean cats or dogs don't exist.
But equally if it correctly said they were cats that would mean nothing for the existence of dogs.
So you are agreeing that wokeness exists?
As an American my first thought was race. It would not have been problematic if it were The White Bitch or the Green Bitch.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2021, 02:34:50 PM
So you are agreeing that wokeness exists?
As an American my first thought was race. It would not have been problematic if it were The White Bitch or the Green Bitch.
No. Not at all. I'm saying your question doesn't make sense. I'm confused how you could get this conclusion from one article.
Disagree that a different coloured btich would much change it.
If you say "how can this possibly be a cat?" that means "cat" must exist.
If can't doesn't exist your question is meaningless, because nothing is cat and this particular example is no different than anything else.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2021, 03:07:30 PM
If you say "how can this possibly be a cat flying spaghetti monster?" that means "cat" flying spaghetti monster must exist.
If can't flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist your question is meaningless, because nothing is cat flying spaghetti monster and this particular example is no different than anything else.
Exactly.
Flying Spaghetti Monster is an object, not a concept. The concept of a flying spaghetti monster does exist.
Yeah... Im lost.
That a flying spaghetti monster is a particularly mad example of a god doesn't necessarily mean gods are real, or indeed not. Its irrelevant at best.
If anything it highlights the stupidity and flexibility of the concept.
Quote from: Tyr on December 21, 2021, 04:31:57 PM
Yeah... Im lost.
That a flying spaghetti monster is a particularly mad example of a god doesn't necessarily mean gods are real, or indeed not. Its irrelevant
But if you can say F.S.M> is a particularly mad example of a god, that must mean you have in mind a more reasonable example of a god.
Similarly you must have in mind a more reasonable example of wokeness. Something that approaches wokeness more closely than the Black Bitch.
This is what we have come to?
I don't even know what we came to or on here.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2021, 04:39:18 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 21, 2021, 04:31:57 PM
Yeah... Im lost.
That a flying spaghetti monster is a particularly mad example of a god doesn't necessarily mean gods are real, or indeed not. Its irrelevant
But if you can say F.S.M> is a particularly mad example of a god, that must mean you have in mind a more reasonable example of a god.
Similarly you must have in mind a more reasonable example of wokeness. Something that approaches wokeness more closely than the Black Bitch.
Sure. That it looks a bit more coherent when targeted at gay rights and anti racism rather than pub names or non traditional gardens does nothing to show its a coherent ideology however. It merely shows there's degrees to the anti woke madness ranging from just the latest trendy term for "left of centre shit" to "anything I dislike is woke"
I don't think your "cult" or "madness" narrative is sticking, laying it on too thick isn't going to help.
Quote from: DGuller on December 21, 2021, 05:14:26 PM
I don't think your "cult" or "madness" narrative is sticking, laying it on too thick isn't going to help.
I think it's actually working out fairly well. Keep up the good work Tyr :cheers:
Quote from: Jacob on December 21, 2021, 05:36:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 21, 2021, 05:14:26 PM
I don't think your "cult" or "madness" narrative is sticking, laying it on too thick isn't going to help.
I think it's actually working out fairly well. Keep up the good work Tyr :cheers:
See, Tyr, this is why "cult' sticks much better to "woke" than to "anti-woke".
Quote from: DGuller on December 21, 2021, 05:44:47 PM
See, Tyr, this is why "cult' sticks much better to "woke" than to "anti-woke".
:lol:
You're nothing if not committed to your point of view :hug:
This thread was a lot more fun during the civil war hijack.
Quote from: chipwich on December 21, 2021, 06:13:08 PM
This thread was a lot more fun during the civil war hijack.
every thread or so devolves into a civil war hijack. It's kinda more of a natural state on Languish than an hijack.
Quote from: Jacob on December 21, 2021, 05:47:06 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 21, 2021, 05:44:47 PM
See, Tyr, this is why "cult' sticks much better to "woke" than to "anti-woke".
:lol:
You're nothing if not committed to your point of view :hug:
I was just thinking that about you!
I am beginning to think the woke defenders are kind of like those people on Fox protecting Christmas.
Quote from: chipwich on December 21, 2021, 06:13:08 PM
This thread was a lot more fun during the civil war hijack.
I didn't expect Yi to take a turn down Ontological lane.
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2021, 07:10:50 PM
I was just thinking that about you!
Yeah? Seems a bit weird to be thinking that, given what I've posted in this thread (not much at all).
What do you reckon my point of view that I'm so committed to is?
QuoteI am beginning to think the woke defenders are kind of like those people on Fox protecting Christmas.
What have I said in this thread that puts me in the category of "woke defender" on par with a Fox Christmas defender? The fact that I think Tyr using "cult" and "madness" is actually a fairly effective tack for him to take?
You know, I expect that if two of us sat down and chatted in a non-languish non-point-scoring environment we'd find that we agreed on more than we disagree on this topic.
Quote from: chipwich on December 21, 2021, 06:13:08 PM
This thread was a lot more fun during the civil war hijack.
"The War of Northern Aggression - Woke Cancel Culture Gone Mad!'
An interesting look at cancel culture in history is examined in a Radio 4 programme/podcast starting at 3.30pm today, details here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0014g04 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0014g04)
Quote
The Long View- Cancel Culture
Cancel culture is not new or unique to the modern day. For as long as humans have had society, we've cancelled those who violated its unwritten rules and norms.
Jonathan Freedland explores what history can tell us about how today's cancel culture might play out. He looks for historical precursors, starting with the the story of Galileo, whose insistence in the early 17th Century that the Earth goes round the Sun and not vice versa, got him into deep trouble with the Catholic Church.
Contributors:
Paula Findlen, Professor of History at Stanford University in California
Terence Dooley , Professor of History at Maynooth University in County Kildare
Sir Antony Beevor, historian and author
We already knew Agatha Cristie was a vile racist for using the n* word in her book title.
But it's now been discovered that she was a vicious anti-semite on top of that, and now, students are freed from this inapropriate content.
I think, Ontario aside, only Florida is as pro-active at canceling dangerous books.
Ontario school board removes Agatha Christie book due to anti-Semitic references (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/ontario-school-board-removes-agatha-christie-book-due-to-anti-semitic-references/ar-AAXSzUU?li=AAggNb9)
Next in line? Wanna take a bet?
Of course the slight complication with that example is that Christie got her publisher to delete all the anti-semitic language from her early novels when they were being published in the US after WW2. I don't know if she revised the British editions or not. So the alternative would be to buy the revised American editions of the novels - I think she was one of those authors who tend to slightly revise and edit her work all through her life so different editions have different choices.
In relation to the anti-semitism, part of that is probably commercial in that she was clearly aware it wasn't going to fly with an American audience. However while there are definitely anti-semitic remarks (normally, but not always, by characters) in the early books, that more or less stops after the war so I think part of it was possibly also Christie changing - or, perhaps because her books are, I think, a really good mirror for a particular milieu in English society, because overt anti-semitism became far less common after the war.
Although there is definitely anti-semitism in her early books - it's nothing compared with, say, Dorothy Sayers where there's a lot more and a lot more not just remarks but really not great Jewish stereotypes. You can - and Christie did - remove the offending passages of her books and it doesn't make much difference. It's tough to imagine how much of Whose Body? would survive that type of editing.
I was wondering where the anti-Semitism was in that book, and you've answered my question.
Does that Sherlock Holmes story need to be cancelled for anti-Mormonism?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2022, 06:04:51 PMDoes that Sherlock Holmes story need to be cancelled for anti-Mormonism?
No :P
I believe it has been removed from some school districts in the US after complaints by Mormon groups and families - that was before it was "cancel culture" though.
Why not? Because Mormons are too white? :hmm:
What did the story say about Mormonism?
Some Mormons were the bad guys. (Foggy memory) something about a girl not wanting to marry Mormon Dude and her being hunted down in England.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2022, 06:20:01 PMWhy not? Because Mormons are too white? :hmm:
Because they're heretics :P :contract:
Of course I think it woud probably be advisable in a modern edition to provide plenty of explanations and context. On a reading list I could see you twinning it with The Moonstone and doing something about crime/detective fiction, scandal and religion/othering. And I'd respectfully trigger warn the content to any Mormons.
QuoteWhat did the story say about Mormonism?
From memory - kidnapping, forced marriage and murder.
It was written at a time when the Mormons still had polygamy and there was a lot of lurid reporting about what went on in Utah in the UK (and the US). Weirdly I've just read Under the Banner of Heaven to watch that TV show and the luridness at that point isn't entirely unfair (and neither's a story about forced marriage - or violence against "Gentiles").
Catholics are heretics. Mormons are cultists. :contract:
Noted :sleep:
There are still some polygamist Mormons.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2022, 06:20:01 PMWhy not? Because Mormons are too white? :hmm:
No, because their history is so violent that ACD didn't need to make up much, just read their history and change a few names.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2022, 06:32:11 PMSome Mormons were the bad guys. (Foggy memory) something about a girl not wanting to marry Mormon Dude and her being hunted down in England.
Is that The Valley of Fear?
Quote from: viper37 on May 30, 2022, 05:33:11 PMWe already knew Agatha Cristie was a vile racist for using the n* word in her book title.
But it's now been discovered that she was a vicious anti-semite on top of that, and now, students are freed from this inapropriate content.
I think, Ontario aside, only Florida is as pro-active at canceling dangerous books.
Ontario school board removes Agatha Christie book due to anti-Semitic references (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/ontario-school-board-removes-agatha-christie-book-due-to-anti-semitic-references/ar-AAXSzUU?li=AAggNb9)
Next in line? Wanna take a bet?
So, one book removed from the curriculum in Ontario equals cancellation? Wow, the criteria for what is a cancellation are really wide these days.
Quote from: Solmyr on May 31, 2022, 03:59:03 AMSo, one book removed from the curriculum in Ontario equals cancellation? Wow, the criteria for what is a cancellation are really wide these days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Then_There_Were_None
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/book-burning-at-ontario-francophone-schools-as-gesture-of-reconciliation-denounced
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/an-ontario-school-board-undergoes-review-of-every-book-in-every-library-to-cull-those-harmful-to-students
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ontario-board-pulls-indigenous-authors-book-from-schools-and-he-doesnt-know-why
And the Handmaid's tale is also banned by many of Ontario's libraries. As well as
Book of Negroes, for offensive language. Works that denounce mysoginy and racism get banned for offensive language...
I remember studying Les dix petits nègres at school. Title may have been changed (seems so in 2020 to Ils étaient dix) but people like Césaire and Senghor reclaimed the word Nègre, not always derogatory, unlike négro (except for not so bright hip hoppers).
Ran across an interesting episode of Malcolm Gladwell's Revisionist History podcast over the weekend.
https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/the-judgment-of-helen-levitt
It is a fairly obvious, but sympathetic take on "cancel culture", but by looking at the 1950s Red Scare and Hollywood blacklist.
Subject was one Helen Levitt. It starts out stating pretty plainly that while Mrs. Levitt didn't do anything wrong (she made sandwiches), she was a 100% unrepentant communist - full-fledged, card-carrying Communist. It had audio of her saying if you weren't a communist you either were afraid or just weren't very smart. Even 30 years later she refused to condemn Stalin or the party. Gladwell recounts the millions killed by the USSR, even reveals himself at one point to have been a Reagan-admiring anti-communist at age 18.
But her and her husband were screenwriters in Hollywood in the 1950s, and soon enough were called to testify before HUAC. They took the 5th and were blacklisted. They couldn't work, they were shunned by their friends, for a number of years. Really had trouble getting enough money to feed their kids.
Eventually the blacklist faded and they started working again by the 1960s and 1970s.
It doesn't take super long to become obvious Gladwell means this as a parable about cancel culture, but obviousness doesn't necessarily take away from the point. When someone has even demonstrably "wrong" views, is a public shunning and shaming really the right response?
(and then, to my mind to make up for the sin of being anti-woke, he takes 3 episodes to analyze the sins of the Disney movie The Little Mermaid, up to the point of re-writing a new ending. I fully take the point that the main character Ariel has like zero agency in her own story after the first act, but when the re-imagined ending has no climactic battle, the witch Ursula marrying King Triton, and the love interest Prince Eric marries his gay lover, this goes incredibly woke)
I dunno if Woke is the right term...fan fiction has probably covered all those scenarios (and more you'd likely rather not know) already. :P
Yeah, somebody even wrote furry Anne Frank fan fiction. Nothing is sacred. :P
Quote from: Barrister on May 31, 2022, 12:42:56 PMRan across an interesting episode of Malcolm Gladwell's Revisionist History podcast over the weekend.
https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/the-judgment-of-helen-levitt
It is a fairly obvious, but sympathetic take on "cancel culture", but by looking at the 1950s Red Scare and Hollywood blacklist.
Subject was one Helen Levitt. It starts out stating pretty plainly that while Mrs. Levitt didn't do anything wrong (she made sandwiches), she was a 100% unrepentant communist - full-fledged, card-carrying Communist. It had audio of her saying if you weren't a communist you either were afraid or just weren't very smart. Even 30 years later she refused to condemn Stalin or the party. Gladwell recounts the millions killed by the USSR, even reveals himself at one point to have been a Reagan-admiring anti-communist at age 18.
But her and her husband were screenwriters in Hollywood in the 1950s, and soon enough were called to testify before HUAC. They took the 5th and were blacklisted. They couldn't work, they were shunned by their friends, for a number of years. Really had trouble getting enough money to feed their kids.
Eventually the blacklist faded and they started working again by the 1960s and 1970s.
It doesn't take super long to become obvious Gladwell means this as a parable about cancel culture, but obviousness doesn't necessarily take away from the point. When someone has even demonstrably "wrong" views, is a public shunning and shaming really the right response?
(and then, to my mind to make up for the sin of being anti-woke, he takes 3 episodes to analyze the sins of the Disney movie The Little Mermaid, up to the point of re-writing a new ending. I fully take the point that the main character Ariel has like zero agency in her own story after the first act, but when the re-imagined ending has no climactic battle, the witch Ursula marrying King Triton, and the love interest Prince Eric marries his gay lover, this goes incredibly woke)
What does woke even mean now in your conservative world view?
I don't understand.
Likening current woke hysteria to the red scare - yes. Though thankfully it hasn't got anywhere near as bad.
But the little mermaid. Eh?
I have to be honest I go all "political correctness gone mad!" when people complain about all the queer-coded Disney villains :blush:
I love Scar and Ursula and Jafar - of course they're technically "bad" but they normally get the best lines and steal the film.
Quote from: Josquius on June 01, 2022, 03:09:27 AMI don't understand.
Likening current woke hysteria to the red scare - yes. Though thankfully it hasn't got anywhere near as bad.
But the little mermaid. Eh?
That's just my connection.
There was one episode linking "cancel culture" to the 1950s red scare.
The next three episodes are spent analyzing The Little Mermaid in a highly "politically correct" way (and not without some merit).
It was my hypothesis that it was ordered this way to make up for the sin of going against "cancel culture".
But by all means check out the Revisionist History podcast yourself. It's in the top 100 podcasts worldwide, and would probably rank higher if it produced content on a weekly basis (instead it does seasons, then takes months off).
I thought this piece quite interesting. I am seeing a trickle of thought out push back against the anti woke cult starting to appear of late. I hope we are turning a corner with this stuff.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jun/03/they-call-me-a-critical-race-theorist-to-delegitimise-my-voice-historian-david-olusoga?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
I admit I haven't read any of this guys stuff though his TV show is rather great. He speaks a lot of sense.
"Anti woke cult".
Yep, you are being very thoughtful, for sure.
I thought that was being overly polite actually :P
Of course. There is the woke, and the "anti woke cultists"
Those are the only two possibilities, of course.
https://medium.com/@zelphontheshelf/10-signs-youre-probably-in-a-cult-1921eb5a3857
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2022, 05:58:29 PM"Anti woke cult".
Yep, you are being very thoughtful, for sure.
QuoteOf course. There is the woke, and the "anti woke cultists"
Those are the only two possibilities, of course.
Interesting that one post apart you handily rebut your own reply.
Quote from: Josquius on June 04, 2022, 01:48:03 AMQuote from: Berkut on June 03, 2022, 05:58:29 PM"Anti woke cult".
Yep, you are being very thoughtful, for sure.
QuoteOf course. There is the woke, and the "anti woke cultists"
Those are the only two possibilities, of course.
Interesting that one post apart you handily rebut your only reply.
Am I missing something here? This makes no sense at all.
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2022, 08:52:29 PMOf course. There is the woke, and the "anti woke cultists"
Those are the only two possibilities, of course.
Feels like an argument that no one was making.
Quote from: DGuller on June 04, 2022, 01:57:57 AMAm I missing something here? This makes no sense at all.
Berkut seemed triggered by calling out the anti woke cult. The natural reply I thought to make to this was pretty much the one he made himself, that though it may be the worldview of the cult, the world is not really divided into two sides of woke and anti-woke. That a nuanced view beyond "its different to my day thus bad" is possible.
He probably feels triggered because he might share some opinions with teh cult.
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2022, 08:52:29 PMOf course. There is the woke, and the "anti woke cultists"
Those are the only two possibilities, of course.
No, and nobody is saying that.
But there certainly are anti woke death cultists. And that IS putting it politely. Fucking racist scum could also be used but that is less polite.
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2022, 08:53:18 PMhttps://medium.com/@zelphontheshelf/10-signs-youre-probably-in-a-cult-1921eb5a3857
#10... Do these coke fueled orgies count for the secret rites thing?
'Cause up to there, I'd swear that was the GOP.
You can be anti radical left wing identity politics without being in a cult. (Do we really have to avoid using the word "woke"?)
Maybe he meant only those who are anti radical left wing identity politics AND in a anti radical left wing identity politics cult? But it sure sounded to me like he was saying that anyone who is "anti woke" is in a cult, as in "the anti woke cult".
It's frustrating (and happens right here basically 100% of the time) that the far left gets to immediately retreat to "YOU MUST BE A RIGHT WING BIGOT, OR SUPPORT RIGHT WING BIGOTRY!" the moment anyone questions their orthodoxy. They don't ever have to defend their positions on their own merits. I suspect it is because they know how weak those merits actually are....
Depends, do you want to use the term in a way consistent with the Fox interpretation or the way in which the people who coined the term meant it?
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2022, 04:25:35 PMYou can be anti radical left wing identity politics without being in a cult. (Do we really have to avoid using the word "woke"?)
Maybe he meant only those who are anti radical left wing identity politics AND in a anti radical left wing identity politics cult? But it sure sounded to me like he was saying that anyone who is "anti woke" is in a cult, as in "the anti woke cult".
It's frustrating (and happens right here basically 100% of the time) that the far left gets to immediately retreat to "YOU MUST BE A RIGHT WING BIGOT, OR SUPPORT RIGHT WING BIGOTRY!" the moment anyone questions their orthodoxy. They don't ever have to defend their positions on their own merits. I suspect it is because they know how weak those merits actually are....
Completely the opposite in my experience. You've basically just summed up hard right behaviour there. Dare to question the orthodoxy of the right and you're clearly just a radical woke sjw. For a random example suggest maybe not fucking the environment by using peat when gardening...? Nah. Woke. Exactly the same as a stinky hippy who wants us all to live in mud huts. It's woke so it's invalid and can't be engaged with.
Call out their bollocks, like weasley hate-masks such as "gender identity ideology" for what it is, sneaky bigotry, and they just scream "you just call everyone you don't like a nazi you radical woker you".
As to identity politics, that tends to be the domain of the right. It has been a favourite tool of theirs for many decades now and in recent years they've really turned it up to loopy extremes.
Does the stinky blue haired gender non conformist perpetually offended radical left twat of the Conservative imagination truly exist? Yes. They're out there. But they're pathetically marginal characters with zero power or influence. Huge contrast to the manufactured "anti woke" cult that is absolutely fucking with our society and is, no exaggeration, a serious threat to the continuation of human civilization with its inbuilt hate of anything THE OTHER doesn't hate, eg. Wanting to do something about climate change.
And yes. Best avoid the word woke. It's dumb and meaningless. If you hate a certain left wing belief then say you hate that belief.
In the modern parlance woke is a pointless cluster of a bunch of disparate things that share the only commonality that this wasn't how things were in 1978.
I think the reason the word "woke" evokes such an emotional reaction is precisely because it is meaningful. Meaningless things rarely evoke reactions. I also think it's a fool's errand to look for an alternative to "woke", because it'll quickly just become the next "woke", and we'll keep on looking for alternatives endlessly without actually discussing the woke ideas. Which is maybe the plan...
Quote from: DGuller on June 04, 2022, 05:01:45 PMI think the reason the word "woke" evokes such an emotional reaction is precisely because it is meaningful. Meaningless things rarely evoke reactions. I also think it's a fool's errand to look for an alternative to "woke", because it'll quickly just become the next "woke", and we'll keep on looking for alternatives endlessly without actually discussing the woke ideas. Which is maybe the plan...
The reason woke evokes such an emotional reaction is because there's a massive media machine - formal and informal - dedicated to metastasize garden-variety discomfort and disagreement with left of centre views into a political weapon.
Quote from: DGuller on June 04, 2022, 05:01:45 PMI think the reason the word "woke" evokes such an emotional reaction is precisely because it is meaningful. Meaningless things rarely evoke reactions. I also think it's a fool's errand to look for an alternative to "woke", because it'll quickly just become the next "woke", and we'll keep on looking for alternatives endlessly without actually discussing the woke ideas. Which is maybe the plan...
How about the word "modern"?
That pretty much sums up the same. Whenever someone says "anti woke", "anti modern" usually subs in quite well.
The trouble with "woke"* is it's not a word used to describe a coherent ideology or set of physical items or anything. It's a purposefully ambiguous word defined purely by the opposition to it. It morphs and shifts to whatever the pack master has set his eye on at that moment.
That is, this is an ideology of hate in the dictionary definition of the word. Its not for anything in particular. Merely opposed to an ill defined morass which it sees as sullying the previously pure world.
In the past we didn't call this sort of thing anti woke. Back then its proponents tended to be a bit more straight forward and honest (albeit not entirely so) and came up with a new word to describe their ideologies as distinct ideas in themselves rather than purely in terms of being opposed to something.
*modern meaning of woke here. The old meaning of aware of racial injustice in an African American context is long gone. Intentionally so some would claim. Not my area at all however.
I think that the Brits and Americans on this board need to understand that the British-English word "woke" is not the same "woke" as is used in American-English. The dictionaries use the American-English definition, so I don't really know what the British-English word means, other than that is an insult of some kind.
So people here tend to speak at cross-purposes when using the word "woke" because they seem to think that it means the same in both languages.
T-Rex is woke now :(
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FQXaTc4XwAALTQe?format=jpg&name=small)
Woke, I think, means anything that is different to what I learned when I was at school.
Quote from: Josquius on June 04, 2022, 04:48:19 PMQuote from: Berkut on June 04, 2022, 04:25:35 PMYou can be anti radical left wing identity politics without being in a cult. (Do we really have to avoid using the word "woke"?)
Maybe he meant only those who are anti radical left wing identity politics AND in a anti radical left wing identity politics cult? But it sure sounded to me like he was saying that anyone who is "anti woke" is in a cult, as in "the anti woke cult".
It's frustrating (and happens right here basically 100% of the time) that the far left gets to immediately retreat to "YOU MUST BE A RIGHT WING BIGOT, OR SUPPORT RIGHT WING BIGOTRY!" the moment anyone questions their orthodoxy. They don't ever have to defend their positions on their own merits. I suspect it is because they know how weak those merits actually are....
Completely the opposite in my experience. You've basically just summed up hard right behaviour there. Dare to question the orthodoxy of the right and you're clearly just a radical woke sjw. For a random example suggest maybe not fucking the environment by using peat when gardening...? Nah. Woke. Exactly the same as a stinky hippy who wants us all to live in mud huts. It's woke so it's invalid and can't be engaged with.
Call out their bollocks, like weasley hate-masks such as "gender identity ideology" for what it is, sneaky bigotry, and they just scream "you just call everyone you don't like a nazi you radical woker you".
As to identity politics, that tends to be the domain of the right. It has been a favourite tool of theirs for many decades now and in recent years they've really turned it up to loopy extremes.
Does the stinky blue haired gender non conformist perpetually offended radical left twat of the Conservative imagination truly exist? Yes. They're out there. But they're pathetically marginal characters with zero power or influence. Huge contrast to the manufactured "anti woke" cult that is absolutely fucking with our society and is, no exaggeration, a serious threat to the continuation of human civilization with its inbuilt hate of anything THE OTHER doesn't hate, eg. Wanting to do something about climate change.
And yes. Best avoid the word woke. It's dumb and meaningless. If you hate a certain left wing belief then say you hate that belief.
In the modern parlance woke is a pointless cluster of a bunch of disparate things that share the only commonality that this wasn't how things were in 1978.
You are doing *exactly* what I am describing. Perfectly.
There is no "hard right" HERE. I don't think there is anyone on Languish now who reflects what you are talking about.
So why bring it up every single time the question of "woke" culture comes up, and people here on Languish question or challenge those ideas?
What relevance does the fact that the hard right doesn't like the hard left have to a debate between people who are on the left about the merits of positions?
The fact that the hard right is against ALL left of center positions has zero relevance to a discussion about what a bunch of progressives think about the most radical of left wing ideas.
Squeeze, what markers, if any, do you use to distinguish between the "anti-woke cult" and those who are presumably within the Pale but criticize wokeness? How do you tell that someone is not in the cult?
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2022, 09:09:49 PMYou are doing *exactly* what I am describing. Perfectly.
There is no "hard right" HERE. I don't think there is anyone on Languish now who reflects what you are talking about.
So why bring it up every single time the question of "woke" culture comes up, and people here on Languish question or challenge those ideas?
What relevance does the fact that the hard right doesn't like the hard left have to a debate between people who are on the left about the merits of positions?
The fact that the hard right is against ALL left of center positions has zero relevance to a discussion about what a bunch of progressives think about the most radical of left wing ideas.
It seems to me you're the one who is far more doing the textbook thing here. Refusing to engage with the actual topic and merely getting defensive in the 'you just call everyone you don't like a nazi!' style.
Anti-woke IS a hard right stance. This isnt just some insult to delegitimise it, it's a simple statement of fact.
Note its perfectly possible to combine ideas from across the political spectrum in one's own system of beliefs. That the left is generally anti corporal punishment doesn't mean someone who is a committed socialist can't actually be all for the cane.
The very concept of woke is a right wing culture war tactic. That's the reason we are even having this discussion. It's simply impossible to discuss it without mentioning it in its proper context - that is unless we want to grab our pitchforks and blindly swallow what the media feeds us. Mission accomplished for the hard right.
I don't actually believe you are fully anti-woke. I'm sure there are plenty of parts of the ideology that you don't follow and there's merely some small aspects of it that really appeal so you've chosen to describe yourself so. But then that's the beauty of such a vague non-term.
You might see woke as just meaning left wing anarchist idiots on twitter, to others it's gays acting with impunity and publically gaying, for me woke is babies crying in the night. Whatever is different in a upsetting way to when one was a kid is woke so let's all sign up to be anti-woke.
It's meaningless.
You want to discuss some extreme left positions? Then discuss some extreme left positions. There's no need to be vague and evasive by simply yelling about the woke.
But every time we do discuss extreme left positions, like how awesome it is to cancel people, the response is to immediately bring up how terrible the bigots on the right are, and how the entire objection to firing professors is just something the right invented.
We do exactly what you are demanding, and the response, 100% of the time, is to immediately start crying about the right wing anti woke cult.
And anyone on the left who talks about extreme left positions, FROM THE LEFT, is consistently railed on as right wing enablers.
Again, the is no "anti woke cult" *here*.
Again, there is no question that nearly 100% of progressive ideas are opposed by the Trumper/Tea Party dumbasses. That means that by definition, literally any discussion about any progressive idea between progressives, if you don't agree with it, the other side can trot out the fact that you are on the side of the dumbass right.
It's exhausting, and I know there are several people here (because we've discussed it via PM) just don't even bother anymore. Which is the entire point of the tactic, I guess.
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2022, 07:18:30 AMBut every time we do discuss extreme left positions, like how awesome it is to cancel people, the response is to immediately bring up how terrible the bigots on the right are, and how the entire objection to firing professors is just something the right invented.
That isn't an extreme left position though. "Cancelling" gets done by people of all positions whether it's fascist book burning or the apartheid boycott.
Similarly it has varying degrees of validity from a tool of authoritarian oppression to a valid method for the powerless to let their voice be heard.
Ironically this "woke" stuff is inherently about cancelling anything with the wiff of being progressive. Suppressing any dissenting views... Having first got the jab in to accuse those with these views of doing this all the time.
QuoteWe do exactly what you are demanding, and the response, 100% of the time, is to immediately start crying about the right wing anti woke cult.
And anyone on the left who talks about extreme left positions, FROM THE LEFT, is consistently railed on as right wing enablers.
That's not what you're doing though by attacking "woke". You are just swallowing the rights culture war.
As said, have an actual issue with something then mention it specifically. Don't just go in for the old man shouts at cloud it's different to my day thus bad woke stuff.
QuoteAgain, the is no "anti woke cult" *here*.
That's the issue in the modern world however. That's what the interesting article talked about.
QuoteAgain, there is no question that nearly 100% of progressive ideas are opposed by the Trumper/Tea Party dumbasses. That means that by definition, literally any discussion about any progressive idea between progressives, if you don't agree with it, the other side can trot out the fact that you are on the side of the dumbass right.
There's not agreeing with something and having an alternative idea then there's automatically taking a contrarian position because it is branded as woke.
You can argue for instance whether nuclear power is a good way of tackling climate change or not. However to argue climate change is just a big conspiracy.... Yeah no. When left wingers do that (piers Corbyn...) they absolutely are on the side of the loony right.
QuoteIt's exhausting, and I know there are several people here (because we've discussed it via PM) just don't even bother anymore. Which is the entire point of the tactic, I guess.
Again with the projection.
Its not those opposed to the anti woke hysteria who are using sneaky tactics here.
I'm just calling it like it is. And I'm not the only one. A pushback is getting into gear, as mentioned in my first post here.
OK, I give up.
It is all cults, all the way down, and I am just "swallowing the rights culture war".
Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2022, 05:34:42 PMI think that the Brits and Americans on this board need to understand that the British-English word "woke" is not the same "woke" as is used in American-English. The dictionaries use the American-English definition, so I don't really know what the British-English word means, other than that is an insult of some kind.
So people here tend to speak at cross-purposes when using the word "woke" because they seem to think that it means the same in both languages.
Then why are Americans using it as an insult?
Quote from: DGuller on June 04, 2022, 05:01:45 PMI think the reason the word "woke" evokes such an emotional reaction is precisely because it is meaningful. Meaningless things rarely evoke reactions. I also think it's a fool's errand to look for an alternative to "woke", because it'll quickly just become the next "woke", and we'll keep on looking for alternatives endlessly without actually discussing the woke ideas. Which is maybe the plan...
20 years ago we'd be using the term "politically correct" instead of woke.
One of the reasons I don't usually bother discussing specific issues is that I'm consistently being denied agency. It's just not a possibility that crosses the woke mind that I can independently find fault with some woke idea without ever hearing about the criticism on Fox News.
This is also why I'm railing against wokism as a general concept: it appears to be exactly what Josquius is trying way too hard to project on some mythical "anti-woke cult". It also seems to hamper liberals in exactly the same way that Putinist propaganda hampers Russia itself: when you deliberately put yourself in an information bubble, you make terrible decisions, because reality doesn't bend to your highly filtered perception of reality.
Quote from: DGuller on June 05, 2022, 10:25:44 AMOne of the reasons I don't usually bother discussing specific issues is that I'm consistently being denied agency. It's just not a possibility that crosses the woke mind that I can independently find fault with some woke idea without ever hearing about the criticism on Fox News.
This is also why I'm railing against wokism as a general concept: it appears to be exactly what Josquius is trying way too hard to project on some mythical "anti-woke cult". It also seems to hamper liberals in exactly the same way that Putinist propaganda hampers Russia itself: when you deliberately put yourself in an information bubble, you make terrible decisions, because reality doesn't bend to your highly filtered perception of reality.
See Grumbler, I am pretty sure this guy is not using woke according to the dictionary definition. If he is, what does "the woke mind" mean in the context of his post?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2022, 10:24:16 AMThen why are Americans using it as an insult?
Only a handful of the most ignorant conservatives think that it works as an insult. In the US, people who consider themselves woke are proud of that fact. Trying to use woke as an insult here is like trying to use "educated" as an insult (which they also attempt).
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2022, 10:24:52 AM20 years ago we'd be using the term "politically correct" instead of woke.
Woke is a bit different. "Politically correct" is the idea that there are euphemisms that are kinder than the ones commonly used, and so one should use the kinder terms and chastise those that use the common ones. "Woke" means that one is aware of the structural inequalities in society, and that racism (or the other -isms) don't always come from racist motives. It's an outgrowth of the BLM movement.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2022, 10:30:01 AMSee Grumbler, I am pretty sure this guy is not using woke according to the dictionary definition. If he is, what does "the woke mind" mean in the context of his post?
DG can use words in ways that defy the common meaning if he wants to. He shouldn't be surprised when that causes difficulty in understanding him, though. I have no idea what "the woke mind" means, but don't really much care. As far as I am concerned, the purpose of language is communication.
Quote from: DGuller on June 05, 2022, 10:25:44 AMOne of the reasons I don't usually bother discussing specific issues is that I'm consistently being denied agency. It's just not a possibility that crosses the woke mind that I can independently find fault with some woke idea without ever hearing about the criticism on Fox News.
This is also why I'm railing against wokism as a general concept: it appears to be exactly what Josquius is trying way too hard to project on some mythical "anti-woke cult". It also seems to hamper liberals in exactly the same way that Putinist propaganda hampers Russia itself: when you deliberately put yourself in an information bubble, you make terrible decisions, because reality doesn't bend to your highly filtered perception of reality.
Except reality fits my perception just fine.
I'm not one of these extreme niche social issues people. Rather I'm one of the people more concerned with broader social issues who loses out because of "woke" and the efforts the cult make to brand anyone left of centre, anyone who says something different to what they knew growing up, with that brush.
It's funny you try and draw parallels between myself and the putinists when they're pretty infamous ringleaders of the anti woke cult, and their current ultra-clever and morally upstanding decisions I do think are having an impact with the popularity of their ideas.
As said - have an actual opinion on an issue then mention your actual opinion on that issue. Don't just rant about the cover all category of woke.
Often I find it's a typical tactic people use to first have a little rant about woke and the intolerant tolerant left before they then go and say something which is beyond the pale of idiocy and shows they're not capable of even the base thinking for a discussion - eg my recent run in with someone ranting about "gender identity ideology".
Quotethe efforts the cult make to brand anyone left of centre, anyone who says something different to what they knew growing up, with that brush.
There isn't anyone here doing that. Nobody. None. Zero.I suspect reality and your perceptions of it are not nearly as aligned as you imagine them to be - you keep railing against people who are not part of the discussion.
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2022, 02:42:21 PMQuotethe efforts the cult make to brand anyone left of centre, anyone who says something different to what they knew growing up, with that brush.
There isn't anyone here doing that. Nobody. None. Zero.
You're completely missing the point.
I never said anyone is doing it here. Thats not what we are discussing at all.
We are talking about the issue in broader society.
QuoteI suspect reality and your perceptions of it are not nearly as aligned as you imagine them to be - you keep railing against people who are not part of the discussion
So the Biden thread is invalid because Biden isn't posting there?
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2022, 07:18:30 AMBut every time we do discuss extreme left positions, like how awesome it is to cancel people, the response is to immediately bring up how terrible the bigots on the right are, and how the entire objection to firing professors is just something the right invented.
The other response is to point out that although the "cancellation" problem from the left exists, the scope of the problem as measured by real life cases and consequences is quite small compared to the rhetoric about it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2022, 03:23:36 PMThe other response is to point out that although the "cancellation" problem from the left exists, the scope of the problem as measured by real life cases and consequences is quite small compared to the rhetoric about it.
Particularly in a UK context where we still hear about it a lot.
Off the top of my head there was an sociology professor who was fired following a campaign by Jewish students largely over his teaching about the "Jewish lobby". There's also Katherine Stock who reisigned after a campaign by students - but strikingly though she thought the university was insufficiently supportive, they did back her as did her union (and she subsequently got an OBE).
That is also part of the issue that the government faced - they'd been bigging up an "academic freedom of speech" bill until it was pointed out that the professor teaching about the sociology of the "Jewish lobby" would be protected - as would numerous extremist Islamist academics who have also been forced out of academic positions over the last 20 years. It doesn't seem to me an issue that only cuts one way or is easy to divide between the acceptable "cancellations" and the bad ones.
I think for that reason it's somewhat fraught but doesn't meet the description you'll often see here in the press.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2022, 03:23:36 PMQuote from: Berkut on June 05, 2022, 07:18:30 AMBut every time we do discuss extreme left positions, like how awesome it is to cancel people, the response is to immediately bring up how terrible the bigots on the right are, and how the entire objection to firing professors is just something the right invented.
The other response is to point out that although the "cancellation" problem from the left exists, the scope of the problem as measured by real life cases and consequences is quite small compared to the rhetoric about it.
I think chilling freedom to speak is a rather serious consequence, in fact.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2022, 03:23:36 PMQuote from: Berkut on June 05, 2022, 07:18:30 AMBut every time we do discuss extreme left positions, like how awesome it is to cancel people, the response is to immediately bring up how terrible the bigots on the right are, and how the entire objection to firing professors is just something the right invented.
The other response is to point out that although the "cancellation" problem from the left exists, the scope of the problem as measured by real life cases and consequences is quite small compared to the rhetoric about it.
We've done exactly the same dance here a dozen times by now. The effect of ostracism is mainly in the chilling effect, you make an example of the few to intimidate millions and force them to self-censor. The chilling effect is a fucking real and serious consequence.
I think I need to save this reply to a text file and copy paste it going forward. Then again, if we have to keep repeating the very obvious point again and again only for the argument it rebuts to get repeated verbatim a short time later, then maybe there is just no willingness to consider it.
As a language purist I take exception to what I view as the sloppy and imprecise use of "woke." My understanding of woke is that it is a black thing for black people, and the message of woke is in the quote in crazy canuck's signature. I associate it in my mind with critical race theory, though I've never seen the connection made explicitly. I disagree with the premise that racism is *everywhere*, but it doesn't intrude much in my life and I don't see it being talked up in any of the media I consume so I don't feel the need to push back. I also get the feeling woke's 15 minutes is already up, and the people who complain about woke are arguing into a vacuum.
I've mentioned before that Brits seem to use woke to cover what I consider PC, with a good splash of green. Save the whales etc.
I'd say the vast majority of cases of people being cancelled that I come across are eejits getting videoed while acting like assholes, many, but not all with a racist element. I have no problem whatsoever with those people losing their jobs.
And then as Joan mentioned there are a handful of cases of university professors and their ilk losing jobs not for racist rants but for statements that go against PC dogma. Those are troubling. Like the student advisors at Harvard (?) who came out in favor of ethnic Halloween costumes.
Are there many examples of people's freedom to speak being majorly impacted by "cancellations"? I have yet to see anyone forced to censor themselves unless they really want to use racist rhetoric without consequences. Heck, many of those "cancelled" are ranting about it in major national media - doesn't seem their freedom of speech was impacted at all.
If you get fired, then the ability to rant about getting fired isn't evidence that your freedom to speak freely was curtailed.
And of course the chilling effect is not going to be directly measurable.
I am surprised that we have to have an argument about whether or not restricting speech with the mob is a problem or not. I thought freedom to speak without having your job or character threatened was something that most liberal people would defend on principle. I guess not.
Are we holding other issues to this same standard - that unless you can prove with some kind of objective measure the consequence is adequately meaningful (even on matters of principle), then we should not care or act on the things people do? Do we demand that people show that the police measurably and provably target people of color before we protest one of them killing a black man? Do we demand that someone show that asking non white people in Arizona for their papers whenever a cop runs into them "majorly impacts" them before we decry the imposition on their rights by the state?
Do we demand that Rosa Parks prove that her ability to get to work is "majorly impacted" before we stand up and say she should be able to ride any bus she wants, anywhere she wants? I mean, "separate but equal" - isn't that the very definition of saying "Hey, it ought to be ok for us to stomp on your rights, because you know, you are not "majorly impacted!"
"Chilling effects" beyond actual tangible repercussions can exist, but they aren't easily measurable or quantifiable. It sure sounds bad to feel "chilled" but how much a problem is it? On a national basis it certainly doesn't seem like there is a lot less racist or misogynist speech now than say is 2015. On the contrary it seems like there is a lot more and it has become a lot more socially acceptable. Which imposes it's own chilling effect. If you focus on a small number of university or other "elite" settings, the incidence of potential "woke offensive" speech is presumably lower, but predominantly for reasons that have little to do with woke chill.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2022, 07:51:44 AM"Chilling effects" beyond actual tangible repercussions can exist, but they aren't easily measurable or quantifiable. It sure sounds bad to feel "chilled" but how much a problem is it? On a national basis it certainly doesn't seem like there is a lot less racist or misogynist speech now than say is 2015. On the contrary it seems like there is a lot more and it has become a lot more socially acceptable. Which imposes it's own chilling effect. If you focus on a small number of university or other "elite" settings, the incidence of potential "woke offensive" speech is presumably lower, but predominantly for reasons that have little to do with woke chill.
That is a fair argument, and one I can actually get behind.
The pendulum has swung, and it inevitably tends to swing to far, and perhaps that is what we are seeing now.
The benefits of more social awareness around racism and bigotry are more valuable then the unfortunate reality that that adjustment will end up over-correcting in some corner cases.
My response to that would be that in that case, we should be vigilant about that, acknowledging it, and actively trying to correct it while keeping the positive momentum moving.
Not deny that it is happening at all, or saying it only happens "to people who deserve it".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2022, 07:51:44 AM"Chilling effects" beyond actual tangible repercussions can exist, but they aren't easily measurable or quantifiable. It sure sounds bad to feel "chilled" but how much a problem is it? On a national basis it certainly doesn't seem like there is a lot less racist or misogynist speech now than say is 2015. On the contrary it seems like there is a lot more and it has become a lot more socially acceptable. Which imposes it's own chilling effect. If you focus on a small number of university or other "elite" settings, the incidence of potential "woke offensive" speech is presumably lower, but predominantly for reasons that have little to do with woke chill.
Without getting into the argument about the volume of racist or mysoginist speech, you're assuming that the chilling effect impacts only that kind of speech. I would argue it is more likely to impact speech which is entirely reasonable, or at least not obviously unreasonable, but which could be twisted with enough motivation. People who are outright racists aren't going to be chilled as much, it's people who have a lot to lose who are getting chilled. Open racists tend to not be in position to lose a lot.
One specific example is a chess Twitch streamer I watch. He's actually very liberal, but he keeps making "jokes" about hoping he won't get cancelled for saying something about social issues which strays from the liberal orthodoxy. He says it as a joke, but it really isn't, it's the kind of joke you say to deal with something you're uneasy about. It's a single example of how the cancel culture can make people feel uneasy for no good reason, and how it can feed into resentment against liberalism.
The fundamental problem with the debate about the chilling effect of cancel culture is that it's very hard for one side to make their point. I myself censor myself here and on Internet in general on certain topics, and just let people say things I have very good professional reasons to believe are false.
The conversation will go something like:
"What are you self-censoring yourself about?"
"The things I don't want to discuss?"
"Which things you don't want to discuss?"
"The things that I think are too dangerous to discuss."
"Like what?"
"Like the things I don't want to talk about."
I'm going to throw this out there: if people themselves feel like they're being forced to self-censor to an unreasonable degree, then maybe that alone is all the proof you need.
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2022, 10:30:22 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2022, 07:51:44 AM"Chilling effects" beyond actual tangible repercussions can exist, but they aren't easily measurable or quantifiable. It sure sounds bad to feel "chilled" but how much a problem is it? On a national basis it certainly doesn't seem like there is a lot less racist or misogynist speech now than say is 2015. On the contrary it seems like there is a lot more and it has become a lot more socially acceptable. Which imposes it's own chilling effect. If you focus on a small number of university or other "elite" settings, the incidence of potential "woke offensive" speech is presumably lower, but predominantly for reasons that have little to do with woke chill.
Without getting into the argument about the volume of racist or mysoginist speech, you're assuming that the chilling effect impacts only that kind of speech. I would argue it is more likely to impact speech which is entirely reasonable, or at least not obviously unreasonable, but which could be twisted with enough motivation. People who are outright racists aren't going to be chilled as much, it's people who have a lot to lose who are getting chilled. Open racists tend to not be in position to lose a lot.
One specific example is a chess Twitch streamer I watch. He's actually very liberal, but he keeps making "jokes" about hoping he won't get cancelled for saying something about social issues which strays from the liberal orthodoxy. He says it as a joke, but it really isn't, it's the kind of joke you say to deal with something you're uneasy about. It's a single example of how the cancel culture can make people feel uneasy for no good reason, and how it can feed into resentment against liberalism.
Honestly this sounds like a issue of that guy. No idea who he is and not a trained therapist but to me it sounds like he's a bit overly concerned with trying to make everyone like him.
He thinks of jokes that he thinks some people will find funny but he has a concern they might offend some people so he has to add disclaimers around them.
Sounds like an issue of confidence more than anything.
Also on the issue of being afraid to say something lest you be branded conservative.... This goes both ways. I would say even more so with the anti woke brigade. People self censor all the time to avoid getting themselves labelled as woke.
In a way this is just fundamental to the human condition. We all learn to control the voice that wants to shout about how fat the lady in front it. I guess the issue comes in the age of mass social media the whole world (that you care about) can potentially see when you get it wrong.
This is an issue. But I really don't think it's one of woke, whether the side of "pro cancel culture" or the anti woke cult.
Quote from: Josquius on June 06, 2022, 11:05:47 AMHonestly this sounds like a issue of that guy. No idea who he is and not a trained therapist but to me it sounds like he's a bit overly concerned with trying to make everyone like him.
He thinks of jokes that he thinks some people will find funny but he has a concern they might offend some people so he has to add disclaimers around them.
Sounds like an issue of confidence more than anything.
You're able to come to all such conclusion about him and his personality based on my one paragraph description? I must be a very gifted writer.
As mentioned before, we've been dancing around this issue without much budging. It seems to me that part of the problem is the conflating of many things. Sure, we can say they are all intimately linked, but it may be of benefit to try to disentangle some of them, at least conceptually.
1) One of the issue is self-censorship in one's private life and conversation. This always happened. It's part of living in society. What may be different now are two things:
a) The fact that private life and public social networks have had their lines blurred considerably. The potential consequences may now be quite different, but lest we romanticize the past, let's remember that ostracism in small communities was quite a harsh punishment. And it still is. See: LGBTQ youth in small/religious communities. It used to be that one could flee one's community for the anonimity of the city. This is now harder, if only because social networks now provide a sense of community that our cities no longer seem to offer. Cities today are a lot more anonymous than they used to be.
b) The other change is that some communities who did not have to censor about much, are now being policed in ways they aren't used to. Minorities, women, downtrodden or marginal people always knew they had to be really careful about the words they used, and with whom. The consequences could be dire. A lot of the strong reaction to "cancel culture" do seem to come from white men, who historically, have not always had their speech so strongly policed.
One of the main issues with this, to me at least, is whether the idea of political emancipation that informed the free speech of white men ought to remain an ideal to be expanded, rather than a speech to be policed as equally as that of other groups. I think sometimes progressive groups tend to treat this as a zero-sum game, that is: the speech of one is always to the detriment of the speech of another. There may be value to that argument in the specific niches of mass media - but that was also true before, albeit arranged according to capital. It's much less clear to be that this argument holds for an ideal of democratic polity.
2) Another issue is institutional. Boycotts are nothing new: see, the American Revolution. Should people pay a price for saying things that provoke ire, or outrage, for another group? Here too, I think there are two elements to take into consideration.
a) The first is the relative power of the person or group being "cancelled". None of the controversial celebrities, to my knowledge, have lost income, or been forced into obscurity. Relatively powerless individuals, on the other hand, have lost their jobs - maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't, but I note that they have much less capital, social or otherwise, to allow them to rebound easily.
b) The other is that institutions now seem to operate increasingly as "brands". Image has taken a lot of place, both for institutional leaders, and, paradoxically, for their "clients". In those circumstances, we may not always have great confidence that institutions will make a principled stand about anything - other than image. This, obviously, goes both ways. I should also note that this has, at least, allowed to expose some pre-existing shadow influences within institutions. Like the role of donors in American universities, for instance.
I think I said it before, on that note, what concerns me mostly is how both left and right now run to existing hierarchies to police and punish medium-level people. What it does is mostly reinforce hierarchies, which I don't personally think is desirable. The other thing that concerns me is not the existence of protest, but the comparative absence, or dearth, of mechanisms of re-integration into a community. We know how to ostracise and punish; not much time is spent on the meaning of forgiveness. Even the demands for contrition appear fake, empty ritualism.
3) A third issue is political. Is denouncing "cancel culture" a neutral sociological observation? Of course not. It's part of political discourse from the right, which carefully curates certain stories to generate outrage. Participating in that discourse can be done from all perspectives, of course, but there is a chance that borrowing the terms, the examples, the concern, the tone, of the right amplifies the right's concerns (and strategies), rather than discussing the issue dispassionately, something which is going to be quite difficult anyway. It also runs the risk of being quite the smokescreen. Is this a gigantic problem in universities? In terms of scale: no. Despite the Republican's best efforts, I am not armed when I teach students. When students are armed on campus, however, who is silencing who?
4) A fourth element is sociological: are people now more sensitive about certain issues than they previously were? This is the sort of question that runs the risk of veering into reactionary "old-man-yells-at-cloud" ranting. Still, if I were to be pressed about identifying changes, I would mention the high valence given to a politics of authenticity and consumerism, which tends to conflate more than ever, what you like (i.e., what you consume, including news) with the person you intimately are.
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2022, 10:30:22 AMOne specific example is a chess Twitch streamer I watch. He's actually very liberal, but he keeps making "jokes" about hoping he won't get cancelled for saying something about social issues which strays from the liberal orthodoxy. He says it as a joke, but it really isn't, it's the kind of joke you say to deal with something you're uneasy about. It's a single example of how the cancel culture can make people feel uneasy for no good reason, and how it can feed into resentment against liberalism.
So I just read this totally differently than you. I don't know that guy but I listen to other podcasts or things where people joke about being cancelled - Mark Kermode and Jack Howard, for example - who are at no risk of being cancelled.
I don't read that joke as reflecting genuine anxiety or fear. It's a bit or a trope - like "you can't say anything now" was a joke. Ricky Gervais has managed to have a career straddling both from Office era to now. I think it is, for now, part of the language of jokes which always changes and evolves to reflect the society it's in. I don't think it's because of some deep-seated or genuine fear of liberal orthodoxy any more than than "one for the kids" literally means I've just made a joke young people will enjoy. Which I can personally guarantee because it's a line I have to use an alarming amount :ph34r: :weep:
QuoteAlso on the issue of being afraid to say something lest you be branded conservative.... This goes both ways. I would say even more so with the anti woke brigade. People self censor all the time to avoid getting themselves labelled as woke.
In a way this is just fundamental to the human condition. We all learn to control the voice that wants to shout about how fat the lady in front it. I guess the issue comes in the age of mass social media the whole world (that you care about) can potentially see when you get it wrong.
Yeah this goes a little bit both ways. I remember biting my tongue at a work do with some very Brexity clients - because it's work, they're clients etc. But also frankly even among colleagues - I think here the "don't talk religion or politics" - I wouldn't bring up certain things and certainly wouldn't express my real views because I know it wouldn't fit in that group and would cause a bit of social awkwardness for no good reason.
In a work context or if I don't know what people think I'll always be a little bit cautious/try to suss out the audience first. It didn't always work and I've had a couple of awkward pints while we try to move on after I've embarrassed myself by being too political :lol: :ph34r:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 06, 2022, 11:53:17 AMSo I just read this totally differently than you. I don't know that guy but I listen to other podcasts or things where people joke about being cancelled - Mark Kermode and Jack Howard, for example - who are at no risk of being cancelled.
I don't read that joke as reflecting genuine anxiety or fear. It's a bit or a trope - like "you can't say anything now" was a joke. Ricky Gervais has managed to have a career straddling both from Office era to now. I think it is, for now, part of the language of jokes which always changes and evolves to reflect the society it's in. I don't think it's because of some deep-seated or genuine fear of liberal orthodoxy any more than than "one for the kids" literally means I've just made a joke young people will enjoy. Which I can personally guarantee because it's a line I have to use an alarming amount :ph34r: :weep:
Obviously you're going to have to trust my words and my perception, but the anxiety feels very real. Content creators are not like Ricky Gervais: if they fall afoul of zero-tolerance policies of their platforms, or the platforms give in to the pressure of the cancel campaign, they will lose all their income and further ability to earn it.
I was looking at a file last week. It was an allegation of domestic violence, Accused bit the victim several times drawing blood, and choked almost to unconsciousness. Accused has been charged with assaulting the same victim twice before, neither of which resulted in a conviction because the victim was reluctant to co-operate.
Anyways, given the past history I wanted to reduce the charge and elect a different mode of procedure. The reason for this was it would keep the matter in Provincial Court and remove the possibility of a jury trial. It would give us a faster trial date, would only require the victim to testify once, and thus increase the chance we could get the victim on the stand in the first place. Finally the max available sentence would still be as much if not more than I would ever get by proceeding with the higher charge.
But I really paused, because this was an allegation of same-sex male domestic violence, and I didn't want anyone to think I didn't take it just as seriously as having a female victim.
All's well that ends well (so far) - I felt it necessary to run everything by a manager who completely agreed with my assessment, and I documented the same.
I definitely find myself being extra careful in certain cases when they touch on social justice/"woke" issues at work. And perhaps that's for the best - it's better to be extra careful in such cases in order to make up for a history of having such cases not taken seriously. But it's a real phenomenon.
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2022, 12:00:56 PMObviously you're going to have to trust my words and my perception, but the anxiety feels very real. Content creators are not like Ricky Gervais: if they fall afoul of zero-tolerance policies of their platforms, or the platforms give in to the pressure of the cancel campaign, they will lose all their income and further ability to earn it.
I take your word for it.
But to be clear I'm not comparing him to Ricky Gervais - but to, say, Jack Howard who's a very liberal and young-ish (just turned thirty) YouTuber who is now getting to direct things and does podcasts I listen to. He also makes those jokes - to be honest I probably have - and I'm absolutely certain they're not from a place of anxiety (also because they can be read or used as much as a comment on people saying "I'm about to get cancelled", as reflecting the risk of getting cancelled). Off the top of my head I think he did when dissing The Eternals, for example.
With Gervais I just mean that he is someone whose career has included both "you can't joke about anything now" to "I'll get cancelled".
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 06, 2022, 11:52:44 AMNone of the controversial celebrities, to my knowledge, have lost income, or been forced into obscurity.
A decent amount of the discourse around wokeness and cancellation relates to comedy or comedians. Comedians often offer a kind of special pleading - with some legitimate justification - that they should have some leeway to poke at social norms. I have sympathy for that position but at the same time it has always and will always be true that comedians select and present material based on audience reaction or anticipated audience reaction. There is a "market test" and thus there is ALWAYS self-censoring going on (
this joke will kill with this audience, this one will bomb). It's also true that some comedians have and do make their living around pushing to the edge (or beyond) of social acceptability and that their act depends on such boundaries existing. To take one recent high profile example, I have no doubt that Dave Chappelle thought through the pros and cons of pinning his comedic barbs to the TERF flag. It's not just an abstract stance for free speech, it's a marketing plan.
As you (Oex) allude, boycotts are also an expression of speech. In a market-based consumer society, decisions about what to patronize or what not to are fundamental to autonomy, as is the right to explain one's position and persuade others of its validity. Of course, it is often true that one person's exercise of rights can negatively impact on another, and with the exercise of power - even rhetorical power - comes responsibility. But these are basic propositions that cut in many directions.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 06, 2022, 11:52:44 AMa) The fact that private life and public social networks have had their lines blurred considerably. The potential consequences may now be quite different, but lest we romanticize the past, let's remember that ostracism in small communities was quite a harsh punishment. And it still is. See: LGBTQ youth in small/religious communities. It used to be that one could flee one's community for the anonimity of the city. This is now harder, if only because social networks now provide a sense of community that our cities no longer seem to offer. Cities today are a lot more anonymous than they used to be.
Yes I think this gets to the tension of the internet society. On the one hand it allows for incredible self-expression and connection, on the other it is a panopticon. I think different people and, particularly, different generations use the internet and social media in different ways along that scale of understanding whether the internet/social media is for you to self express or where you are being watched (and that may vary in different spaces - for example Tumblr :o :blink:).
I also think there is an angle of work attempting to claim more and more of people's private personal life. I am absolutely out at work and I've led a company LGBT+ network - I am very strongly of the view that you should generally feel comfortable in being who you are at work. But, in the context of work phones and social media or emails as part of your work, I slightly read "bring your whole self to work" as also "bring work to your whole self". It is knocking barriers of time and space that are yours and private to be occupied by work. But I think there has been a deliberate blurring of the private and the professional by companies - and "wokeness" has possibly been part of that.
Quoteb) The other change is that some communities who did not have to censor about much, are now being policed in ways they aren't used to. Minorities, women, downtrodden or marginal people always knew they had to be really careful about the words they used, and with whom. The consequences could be dire. A lot of the strong reaction to "cancel culture" do seem to come from white men, who historically, have not always had their speech so strongly policed.
Yeah this is absolutely true. I worked as a lawyer in a City law firm - I knew older gay guys who'd worked in that sector since the 80s. They spent years where they could not discuss their life with colleagues or clients. We did surveys and that has mostly gone but is still present with, especially, junior lawyers who've just started and don't know how open they can be. It is a real shame - it's a cliche but I've spoken to trainees who felt like it was going back into the closet. They were very out at university and then aren't when they get their first professional job - on the positive side most feel they can be open after a little while.
Quotea) The first is the relative power of the person or group being "cancelled". None of the controversial celebrities, to my knowledge, have lost income, or been forced into obscurity. Relatively powerless individuals, on the other hand, have lost their jobs - maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't, but I note that they have much less capital, social or otherwise, to allow them to rebound easily.
I've mentioned before but the cancellation that sticks in my mind was some Latino guy - I think working for an electricity company - who did the Ok sign with his hands. It was photoed and interpreted as "white power" by a white guy online - there was a brief furore, the Latino guy was fired, then re-hired and everyone realised things got out of hand quickly.
As I've said before I think one point is that in the US part of the problem is at will employment and this is a labour law issue. He should not have been fired, but also he's not someone with a huge amount of capital and should not be targeted for clout. The other point is that I think part of the issue with "wokeness" is that it is driven by people who spend a lot of time online - and often directed at people who spend a lot of time online. I don't think 90% of what they're arguing about are things that have permeated through to normal society which means you see something that is absolutely a sign among terminally online Proud Boys and apply it to a random guy in the street. Normally it will not be because they're a raging Nazi.
QuoteI think I said it before, on that note, what concerns me mostly is how both left and right now run to existing hierarchies to police and punish medium-level people. What it does is mostly reinforce hierarchies, which I don't personally think is desirable. The other thing that concerns me is not the existence of protest, but the comparative absence, or dearth, of mechanisms of re-integration into a community. We know how to ostracise and punish; not much time is spent on the meaning of forgiveness. Even the demands for contrition appear fake, empty ritualism.
Yes. I think you can have very strict standards and attitudes, with a broad route for redemption/re-integration/forgiveness - or you can have very lax standards but there's a one hit and you're out approach. It's perhaps inevitable that the US goes for the most Calvinist approach that emphasises both the sin and the impossibility of redemption.
I think a better model is the Blackpool footballer (and captain) Marvin Ekpiteta, who sent homophobic tweets when he was 17. Another Blackpool player Jake Daniels (also 17) has become the first professional footballer to come out as gay. Ekpiteta apologised for those tweets from the past, said they don't reflect who he is now, he's fully responsible for and embarrassed by them. Daniels said he had no issue with it or with Ekpiteta who was (as captain) one of the first team-mates he came out to. I think that is how it should work - or should be able to work. The FA already launched an investigation into the tweets, but hopefully they also agree it's basically closed.
Edit: Amazing that I wrote about that and was thinking about "cancel culture" - then I checked Twitter and see that Milo Yiannopoulos is now apparently working for Marjorie Taylor Greene in Congress.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 06, 2022, 02:47:11 AMAre there many examples of people's freedom to speak being majorly impacted by "cancellations"? I have yet to see anyone forced to censor themselves unless they really want to use racist rhetoric without consequences. Heck, many of those "cancelled" are ranting about it in major national media - doesn't seem their freedom of speech was impacted at all.
The same could be said of someone who had been beaten up for voicing an unpopular opinion, or imprisoned, or made to pay a fine. They would still have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean we can't object to their treatment.
If I were to be ostracized for opinions that I have expressed then that would be bad, but possibly something I could risk. But being ostracized for opinions that are 180 degrees different from what I have expressed is extremely unattractive to me. I have tasted it in a very small and limited way, and I did not care for it at all. That risk makes me very reluctant to engage in public discourse.
To some people, like me, a society where people can voice their opinions without fear is a positive thing. To many people it is a negative thing. There is no mystery here, and both positions are as valid as the other. It's just a difference in values.
I'm not sure if this is really "cancel culture" but watching the latest US media controversy and it's like a teenage drama. Everything playing out on Twitter with multi-day, multi-directional intersecting pile-ones from people who are, ostensibly, colleagues.
Not sure it's a great look and you can hardly blame the average punter for thinking the whole paper's turned into a madhouse.
Much as it pains me to say - I feel like this is the sort of issue that should have been solved by a semi-competent HR department. The whole thing is mad.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 08, 2022, 04:13:35 PMI'm not sure if this is really "cancel culture" but watching the latest US media controversy and it's like a teenage drama. Everything playing out on Twitter with multi-day, multi-directional intersecting pile-ones from people who are, ostensibly, colleagues.
Not sure it's a great look and you can hardly blame the average punter for thinking the whole paper's turned into a madhouse.
Much as it pains me to say - I feel like this is the sort of issue that should have been solved by a semi-competent HR department. The whole thing is mad.
Is this the WaPo brouhaha?
Yeah. I keep on trying to ignore it and then it, somehow, flares up again :blink:
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2022, 10:44:54 AMThe fundamental problem with the debate about the chilling effect of cancel culture is that it's very hard for one side to make their point. I myself censor myself here and on Internet in general on certain topics, and just let people say things I have very good professional reasons to believe are false.
The conversation will go something like:
"What are you self-censoring yourself about?"
"The things I don't want to discuss?"
"Which things you don't want to discuss?"
"The things that I think are too dangerous to discuss."
"Like what?"
"Like the things I don't want to talk about."
I'm going to throw this out there: if people themselves feel like they're being forced to self-censor to an unreasonable degree, then maybe that alone is all the proof you need.
I wonder what DG is self-censoring.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 08, 2022, 04:26:43 PMYeah. I keep on trying to ignore it and then it, somehow, flares up again :blink:
Yeah, I didn't even understand what the original "sin" was of the one writer.
But the paper itself has posted basically "hey, if you have an issue with a colleague take it right to that colleague", with one of the complainants then replying 'I don't know how speaking up about sexism, discrimination and unequal treatment happening here in our newsroom is wrong".
https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1534574217718648832
He retweeted this and then his colleague commented:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUgRuk5XsAg39SU?format=jpg&name=360x360)
Which is bad (by him). I think it probably needed to go as far as complaining to HR/his boss, him getting a bollocking and un-retweeting it.
I'm not sure it's needed a week of discourse, him getting suspended without pay, think pieces or two mutually hostile camps forming on broadly predictable camps. That it's unfolded this way all messily and on Twitter with people on both sides dragging in and piling on others.
Edit: I think it's fair for her to call it out publicly and complain to his boss/HR.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 08, 2022, 04:26:43 PMYeah. I keep on trying to ignore it and then it, somehow, flares up again :blink:
The Conservative Twittersphere has been feasting this week.
The whole thing is mad high school drama.
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 08, 2022, 04:43:30 PMThe Conservative Twittersphere has been feasting this week.
The whole thing is mad high school drama.
:lol:
British media Twitter has also been watching agog :ph34r:
It really is - mixed with an opportunity for the media to report on the media. I always quite like the Washington Post because it isn't anywhere near as self-involved as the New York Times. But this feels very much approaching the level of NYT - or BBC commenting on themselves.
Though I do always love watching a BBC host of a BBC news programme follow up a report on a BBC scandal by noting that "the BBC were approached for comment and has not responded" :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2022, 04:32:50 PMYeah, I didn't even understand what the original "sin" was of the one writer.
But the paper itself has posted basically "hey, if you have an issue with a colleague take it right to that colleague", with one of the complainants then replying 'I don't know how speaking up about sexism, discrimination and unequal treatment happening here in our newsroom is wrong".
https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1534574217718648832
The original sin was that a post writer reposted (on his own account and is own time) a joke that was, frankly, kinda funny. The complainer took the issue public. The reposter deleted the repost and apologized, but that wasn't enough and eventually he was suspended for a month without pay. It has now turned into a controversy over whether or not Post reporters should launch nuclear weapons as the first resort and/or whether the Post would have taken any action had the first complainer not gone nuclear.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 08, 2022, 04:41:23 PMHe retweeted this and then his colleague commented:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUgRuk5XsAg39SU?format=jpg&name=360x360)
Which is bad (by him). I think it probably needed to go as far as complaining to HR/his boss, him getting a bollocking and un-retweeting it.
I'm not sure it's needed a week of discourse, him getting suspended without pay, think pieces or two mutually hostile camps forming on broadly predictable camps. That it's unfolded this way all messily and on Twitter with people on both sides dragging in and piling on others.
Edit: I think it's fair for her to call it out publicly and complain to his boss/HR.
Oh yes - I did see that. I remember thinking "meh - joke is in poor taste" but yeah absolutely - should have ended with deleting the retweet and a brief apology.
Nope, there is no problem at all with cancel culture. Gosh no.
I mean, retweeting a joke is surely grounds for reasonable people to have someone fired.
And as far as I can tell, there is no evidence at all that something like this would have a chilling effect on anyone else considering whether or not to post jokes on their personal twitter account, so we should assume that there is no such effect.
Also, has anyone noticed that the people who mostly complain about this stuff are white? Of course, the people who mostly try to get people cancelled are white as well, but that's not nearly as interesting, I am sure...
I have noticed most of the people complaining about comedians during the show are women.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 08, 2022, 04:29:48 PMQuote from: DGuller on June 06, 2022, 10:44:54 AMThe fundamental problem with the debate about the chilling effect of cancel culture is that it's very hard for one side to make their point. I myself censor myself here and on Internet in general on certain topics, and just let people say things I have very good professional reasons to believe are false.
The conversation will go something like:
"What are you self-censoring yourself about?"
"The things I don't want to discuss?"
"Which things you don't want to discuss?"
"The things that I think are too dangerous to discuss."
"Like what?"
"Like the things I don't want to talk about."
I'm going to throw this out there: if people themselves feel like they're being forced to self-censor to an unreasonable degree, then maybe that alone is all the proof you need.
I wonder what DG is self-censoring.
If he's innocent, he has nothing to hide?
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2022, 05:45:52 PMNope, there is no problem at all with cancel culture. Gosh no.
I mean, retweeting a joke is surely grounds for reasonable people to have someone fired.
And as far as I can tell, there is no evidence at all that something like this would have a chilling effect on anyone else considering whether or not to post jokes on their personal twitter account, so we should assume that there is no such effect.
Also, has anyone noticed that the people who mostly complain about this stuff are white? Of course, the people who mostly try to get people cancelled are white as well, but that's not nearly as interesting, I am sure...
And how is this "cancel culture"?
Saying something offensive has always been cause for disciplinary action. Its always been the case that some companies have an overly trigger happy HR department.
The only things different these days are
1: its not just rich white conservative men you have to be careful of upsetting.
2: the Internet allows your stupid shit to be dicseminated widely and leave a lasting paper trail.
In the case of number 1 it's fair enough. Don't be a dick is the golden rule to live by. Of course there's such a variety of people in the world a lot of things are sure to upset somebody, so some perspective is required, but generally that is the case.
For number 2... That's only the fault of the left in sofar as San Francisco is a left wing place.
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2022, 05:45:52 PMNope, there is no problem at all with cancel culture. Gosh no.
I mean, retweeting a joke is surely grounds for reasonable people to have someone fired.
Is this somehow a common thing? In my experience, these kinds of cases end with deletion and apology 99% of the time.
Quote from: Josquius on June 09, 2022, 03:03:48 AMAnd how is this "cancel culture"?
Saying something offensive has always been cause for disciplinary action. Its always been the case that some companies have an overly trigger happy HR department.
The only things different these days are
1: its not just rich white conservative men you have to be careful of upsetting.
2: the Internet allows your stupid shit to be dicseminated widely and leave a lasting paper trail.
In the case of number 1 it's fair enough. Don't be a dick is the golden rule to live by. Of course there's such a variety of people in the world a lot of things are sure to upset somebody, so some perspective is required, but generally that is the case.
For number 2... That's only the fault of the left in sofar as San Francisco is a left wing place.
It's cancel culture because the guy retweeted a joke on his personal account on his own time. It was a fellow-employee that dragged the Post into this in an attempt to get him fired.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 09, 2022, 03:33:05 AMIs this somehow a common thing? In my experience, these kinds of cases end with deletion and apology 99% of the time.
This is only known to us because it happened at the WaPo. I don't think that we have any data on how often this happens, but I doubt that a regular company would have taken such strong action... if any action at all.
Quote from: grumbler on June 09, 2022, 05:49:21 AMQuote from: Josquius on June 09, 2022, 03:03:48 AMAnd how is this "cancel culture"?
Saying something offensive has always been cause for disciplinary action. Its always been the case that some companies have an overly trigger happy HR department.
The only things different these days are
1: its not just rich white conservative men you have to be careful of upsetting.
2: the Internet allows your stupid shit to be dicseminated widely and leave a lasting paper trail.
In the case of number 1 it's fair enough. Don't be a dick is the golden rule to live by. Of course there's such a variety of people in the world a lot of things are sure to upset somebody, so some perspective is required, but generally that is the case.
For number 2... That's only the fault of the left in sofar as San Francisco is a left wing place.
It's cancel culture because the guy retweeted a joke on his personal account on his own time. It was a fellow-employee that dragged the Post into this in an attempt to get him fired.
Wouldn't this happen in the old days too however?
You're in the pub and your colleague at the next table hears you making a sexist joke. Assume for argument they're recording for some reason at the time and can prove it (the big problem). They then decide to try and get you fired over it.
Honorable behaviour? No.
But is it anything new beyond the capacity to do it increasing? Also no.
As I said in my first post about this - I'm not sure it is "cancel culture" and it feels different.
But there's definitely something of this culture in "cancel culture". It feels - not for the first time with the US media (the NYT is really bad at this) - that we're seeing a little bit too much of the sausage being made and that just because you're on social media professionally doesn't mean you should be quite so on social media.
I often think about which previously respected professions have most trashed their reputation by engaging with social media and getting a little bit too online - academics, barristers, journalists, politicians etc.
Over here I think about the bar having to send a warning to QCs to chill out a bit on social media because they were getting into really intemperate political fights, commenting on things that aren't necessarily their area of expertise and engaging in some political conspiracy thinking (normally of the centrist/Remainer-ultra variety) while having "QC" in their Twitter handle. There was a worry that it was all starting to bring the profession into disrepute.
I feel there's something similar with academics - but also journalists and politicians. The need to be compulsively online means we're seeing more than is probably helpful - and the slide from helpful contributor of expertise to conspiracy or pile-ons or ranting about something that isn't your area (but with the credibility of your title/bio) is pretty easy to go down.
Quote from: grumbler on June 09, 2022, 05:49:21 AMIt's cancel culture because the guy retweeted a joke on his personal account on his own time. It was a fellow-employee that dragged the Post into this in an attempt to get him fired.
That's part of the problem with journalists and politicians on Twitter. That's not his personal account. It's his verified work account where he posts all of his stories or other interesting re-tweets etc (because he is a great reporter) - from the bio:
QuoteCovering politics for @washingtonpost. [email protected], 202-334-7387. @CWAUnion member. Avatar by @damnyouregis. Buy my book: http://tinyurl.com/h7wyg2c
Los Angeles washingtonpost.com/thetrailer/ Born September 26 Joined February 2008
I think it goes to Oex's point around the blurring of personal and professional on social media which is especially acute for journalists and politicians (but also others - like academics). He's a reporter for a paper but it's probably even more difficult to draw a line for, say, a freelancer.
He tweeted something on his work account, which brings his actions into the work environment. Work related discipline for that sort of thing has been common for a long time -well before social media.
I don't see the issue with another employee making the complaint and the employer acting on it. This is day to day HR stuff.
@daveweigel is a personal account. The work account is @washingtonpost.
What horseshit. This is NOT day to day HR stuff.
If you have a problem with another employees actions that are directly affecting YOU, you take it to HR. You don't post your complaint to social media and bring the twitter mob into it in an effort to make the company respond to the mob rather then the specifics of your complaint.
This is exactly what people talk about when they are talking about cancel culture.
A *valid* HR complaint has rules and procedures built in to protect all the parties involved. Screaming to the world that "this is how your company does business" is not "day to day HR stuff". If she wanted to act with integrity, she would have taken her complaint to HR privately and within the structure created for that.
Quote from: Josquius on June 09, 2022, 06:05:49 AMQuote from: grumbler on June 09, 2022, 05:49:21 AMQuote from: Josquius on June 09, 2022, 03:03:48 AMAnd how is this "cancel culture"?
Saying something offensive has always been cause for disciplinary action. Its always been the case that some companies have an overly trigger happy HR department.
The only things different these days are
1: its not just rich white conservative men you have to be careful of upsetting.
2: the Internet allows your stupid shit to be dicseminated widely and leave a lasting paper trail.
In the case of number 1 it's fair enough. Don't be a dick is the golden rule to live by. Of course there's such a variety of people in the world a lot of things are sure to upset somebody, so some perspective is required, but generally that is the case.
For number 2... That's only the fault of the left in sofar as San Francisco is a left wing place.
It's cancel culture because the guy retweeted a joke on his personal account on his own time. It was a fellow-employee that dragged the Post into this in an attempt to get him fired.
Wouldn't this happen in the old days too however?
You're in the pub and your colleague at the next table hears you making a sexist joke. Assume for argument they're recording for some reason at the time and can prove it (the big problem). They then decide to try and get you fired over it.
Honorable behaviour? No.
But is it anything new beyond the capacity to do it increasing? Also no.
The problem is that the means by which they decided to get them fired is not going to HR, showing how their actions violated some company policy or law, and then asking for action to be taken.
Instead the started screaming in the public square how their company tolerates misogynists. They specifically are trying to get the outcome they want not by making a fair, rational, and answerable complaint, but rather by attempting to enlist the twitter mob to scare the employer into NOT evaluating the complaint rationally.
This is the very definition of attempt cancel culture/mob justice. Where the deciding force is not the merits of the complaint, but the anger of the mob.
I am continually amazed that people will see shit like this and say "Yep, that is definitely how things ought to work".
This is the same shit that got mobs to destroy Jewish businesses, or got French catholic priests shoved onto boats and burned alive. Mob justice is fucking bad, even when you like the mob.
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2022, 08:45:36 AMWhat horseshit. This is NOT day to day HR stuff.
If you have a problem with another employees actions that are directly affecting YOU, you take it to HR. You don't post your complaint to social media and bring the twitter mob into it in an effort to make the company respond to the mob rather then the specifics of your complaint.
This is exactly what people talk about when they are talking about cancel culture.
A *valid* HR complaint has rules and procedures built in to protect all the parties involved. Screaming to the world that "this is how your company does business" is not "day to day HR stuff". If she wanted to act with integrity, she would have taken her complaint to HR privately and within the structure created for that.
As said, agreed its pretty shitty.
But there's always been office rivalries and dickish colleagues, HR has always been a quite detested part of the professional landscape by the rank and file that is believed to exist just to try and get you fired.
Whether it's a valid hr complaint or not, it remains an hr complaint that could have been made just as well 20 years ago. It's nothing new beyond the medium.
Quote from: Josquius on June 09, 2022, 08:51:42 AMQuote from: Berkut on June 09, 2022, 08:45:36 AMWhat horseshit. This is NOT day to day HR stuff.
If you have a problem with another employees actions that are directly affecting YOU, you take it to HR. You don't post your complaint to social media and bring the twitter mob into it in an effort to make the company respond to the mob rather then the specifics of your complaint.
This is exactly what people talk about when they are talking about cancel culture.
A *valid* HR complaint has rules and procedures built in to protect all the parties involved. Screaming to the world that "this is how your company does business" is not "day to day HR stuff". If she wanted to act with integrity, she would have taken her complaint to HR privately and within the structure created for that.
As said, agreed its pretty shitty.
But there's always been office rivalries and dickish colleagues, HR has always been a quite detested part of the professional landscape by the rank and file that is believed to exist just to try and get you fired.
Whether it's a valid hr complaint or not, it remains an hr complaint that could have been made just as well 20 years ago. It's nothing new beyond the medium.
It is absolutely new to the medium, because prior to social media, nobody had the ability to, on their own power, advertise their complaint to millions of potential customers and incite the mob to act.
Or rather, it was very hard to do. And when there were cases that the circumstances did in fact allow the mob to influence actions, it almost always (but not always) turned out pretty badly.
Why are people so adamant to deny that what is happening right in front of them is clearly what is happening right in front of them?
Quote from: grumbler on June 09, 2022, 08:41:54 AM@daveweigel is a personal account. The work account is @washingtonpost.
That's wrong.
Some (normally more conservative/risk averse) media organisations may require that you identify them in your Twitter handle - like the NYT or BBC - but whether they do that or not, your verified social media presence is part of your job as a journalist. It is your work in just the same way as trend back to newsletters etc is. Part of the job of being a journalist is building a social media brand and it's something media organisations absolutely care about - what they are measuring is your brand which can direct attention, not followers of @washingtonpost (and it's something you'll want as a freelancer too).
It's why most journalists will often have private (and normally locked) social media accounts for actual personal use. It's like the difference between a work and personal email address.
QuoteHe tweeted something on his work account, which brings his actions into the work environment. Work related discipline for that sort of thing has been common for a long time -well before social media.
I don't see the issue with another employee making the complaint and the employer acting on it. This is day to day HR stuff.
But it isn't - as I say that's what's got everyone in UK media watching with a sort of rubbernecking horror.
The whole situation is incredible because it should be a standard HR issue addressed by a normal functioning HR team. But that hasn't happened.
This should have been a simple HR matter. But it's largely been played out on social media over the course of a week. There's been different people (who work for the Washington Post) offering their opinion in real time, different pile-ons in different directions instigated or encouraged by people who are, ostensibly, colleagues. Predictable camps forming between the different people involved - including their freelancer friends who are not associated with the Washington Post.
The whole thing is incredibly messy and very public.
It's not the only example - there's been a few ongoing stories in the UK media about prominent (freelance) columnists of almost orchestrating Twitter pile-ons of less prominent (employed) reporters at the same paper if they don't like the way a story was framed or written. And where and how that falls on whether it's bullying, is it covered by social media usage policies (which every media organisation has in abundance) and the extent to which they even apply to a freelance commentator v actual staff. But I've not seen anything quite as long-running or involved as this.
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2022, 08:45:36 AMIf you have a problem with another employees actions that are directly affecting YOU, you take it to HR. You don't post your complaint to social media and bring the twitter mob into it in an effort to make the company respond to the mob rather then the specifics of your complaint.
That's correct but reality is taking us in a different direction.
And the discussion about whether this is "work" account or "personal" account is telling because IMO the answer is obvious that the distinction between the two is effectively meaningless in the Internet 2.0 era. Weigel's twitter account is a great example - nominally it is under his personal name but the description touts his WaPo connections and links to his WaPo work and his 600K followers are not there because they are interested in his pets and favorite tourist destinations. Everything is blended and blurred together.
This is what happens when post civil rights era/Anita Hill HR culture meets present day social media realities. The Post reporter creates social media sites to promote his Post affiliation and professional activity and broaden his professional reach and clout, but under his personal name. A co-worker reacts, not by using traditional HR channels, but through her own social media accounts.
One can tsk tsk about it, but the none of these social media genies are going back into their neat little bottles. Everyone's laundry is now out on the line to see. Companies have to adapt and adjust best they can. And employees using social media to augment their professional presence should be accordingly forewarned. Just like we all had to learn (or fail to learn) how to use and not use email.
No question - but my issue here is that in order to deal with this, with this new reality, we have to acknowledge that it has great benefits and great potential negatives.
Having a mob try to get someone fired is bad.
Now, perhaps there isn't much that can be done about that - but whatever CAN be done won't be done if the response to mobs getting people fired because someone incites them is "Yep, that's how that is supposed to work!"
This is culture. We don't have to accept that whatever happens is the only thing that COULD happen.
I agree that the dude was probably not wise to use his twitter account to repost off color jokes. But that is an issue that can and should be handled in a controlled, legal manner. Not by some mob contest to see who can get more people screeching louder.
If there was any justice, she would be fired for violating HR policy and trying to force her companies management to fire someone based on mob outrage. That is a much more serious crime then him telling a joke on his sorta kinda company associated twitter account.
I don't think it's a good look for a media organization to try to restrict employees from public commentary on public statements made by other employees.
At the same time, for this specific incident, where Weigel took down the tweet and apologized, I think a suspension was an excessive response.
My preferred approach would be a little more tolerance in all directions and try to minimize piling on more HR rules. But that may be naive.
By the looks of her tweetstorm today it sounds like she's going after the Post more than any particular colleague.
I am fairly sure the editors at WaPo would love to fire her but they realize that will just throw even more gas onto the dumpster fire.
Not talking about this specific case, but aren't newspapers in general notoriously crappy employers and dysfunctional organizations? At least that's my impression. And no that's not just because they like to talk about themselves good and bad, a lot of stuff that they do would simply never fly in a real organization.
There is a history here - the reporter sued the paper last year in a suit that was dismissed but raised some interesting issues.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 09, 2022, 10:56:25 AMThere is a history here - the reporter sued the paper last year in a suit that was dismissed but raised some interesting issues.
What was it about?
Quote from: The Brain on June 09, 2022, 10:57:50 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on June 09, 2022, 10:56:25 AMThere is a history here - the reporter sued the paper last year in a suit that was dismissed but raised some interesting issues.
What was it about?
The reporter had been a sexual assault victim. The paper took her off the Kavanaugh-Blasey Ford story on the grounds that because of her personal history it would create a perception of bias if she reported the story.
The standard punishment for making a misogynistic joke is 18 hours watching Margret Cho. After that, people don't make jokes.
"Margret Cho" is just a word; the reality is much worse.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 09, 2022, 11:03:41 AMThe reporter had been a sexual assault victim. The paper took her off the Kavanaugh-Blasey Ford story on the grounds that because of her personal history it would create a perception of bias if she reported the story.
She was also suspended for tweeting about Washington Post coverage of Kobe Bryant's death by noting that it wasn't mentioning the sexual assault settlements. Which seems a fair point - same as the initial eulogising of William Hurt needed an asterisk and some corrections after a few hours.
QuoteOne can tsk tsk about it, but the none of these social media genies are going back into their neat little bottles. Everyone's laundry is now out on the line to see. Companies have to adapt and adjust best they can. And employees using social media to augment their professional presence should be accordingly forewarned. Just like we all had to learn (or fail to learn) how to use and not use email.
Every media company will have detailed social media policies on what their reporters should or shouldn't do.
Dragging the paper publicly or having a big public fight with multiple colleagues about internal arguments is probably the number one thing on the list of things you shouldn't do. That's the thing I've found so surprising is how this has run for days with lots of people employed by the Post in public with, inevitably, emails from the editor immediately leaking. It just feels like the entire thing should have been dealt with internally not as a multi-drama for everyone else to enjoy.
As I say it's just very, very messy and - in my view - letting people see a little bit too much of how the sausage is made. I think it's less about "cancel culture" and more about the blurring of personal and work, but also what is and isn't public. I think it is messier for those jobs where social media is part of it - like journalists, politicians etc.
Indeed, and I note that the people who take to twitter are people who are used to having an audience in front of whom they perform their expertise: journalists, politicians, academics, lawyers.
Yeah and I think the performance is key.
Once they move from areas of genuine expertise - which they normally do - I'm not sure social media has helped with public trust/respect for those professions :lol: :ph34r:
Yes - that's one of the main difference between being an intellectual and hogging for attention. An intellectual usually has to venture out of their area of expertise (otherwise, they are just experts). But it takes time to reflect, and intervene properly. The constant need for reaction encourages people to go for low-hanging fruit with quick dopamine fix...
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 09, 2022, 12:21:48 PMDragging the paper publicly or having a big public fight with multiple colleagues about internal arguments is probably the number one thing on the list of things you shouldn't do
:homestar:
I didn't realize we could embed YT videos now :o
Now we just need the ability to embed tweets so we can be LOOKING LIVE NOW ON TWITTER
We are a liveblog? :o
We are when the big news hits I think :D
The posting was massive when the Ukraine war started
Felicia Sonmez just got canned.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2022, 06:30:15 PMFelicia Sonmez just got canned.
Not very surprising. I hope she gets some help for dealing with criticism. She's a good reporter, by all accounts, but way too belligerent.
Quote from: grumbler on June 09, 2022, 08:31:21 PMQuote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2022, 06:30:15 PMFelicia Sonmez just got canned.
Not very surprising. I hope she gets some help for dealing with criticism. She's a good reporter, by all accounts, but way too belligerent.
Maybe she's bipolar. Then everything could come full circle.
Wow, there is some small measure of justice at least.
What a mess.
Quote from: HVC on June 09, 2022, 08:38:05 PMQuote from: grumbler on June 09, 2022, 08:31:21 PMQuote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2022, 06:30:15 PMFelicia Sonmez just got canned.
Not very surprising. I hope she gets some help for dealing with criticism. She's a good reporter, by all accounts, but way too belligerent.
Maybe she's bipolar. Then everything could come full circle.
I feel it that it's a form of PTSD.
Quote from: HVC on June 09, 2022, 08:38:05 PMQuote from: grumbler on June 09, 2022, 08:31:21 PMQuote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2022, 06:30:15 PMFelicia Sonmez just got canned.
Not very surprising. I hope she gets some help for dealing with criticism. She's a good reporter, by all accounts, but way too belligerent.
Maybe she's bipolar. Then everything could come full circle.
:o
:zipped:
I was very surprised it came to that, not because it wasn't the right thing to do, but because I didn't think WP had the balls to do that. Just yesterday I was wondering if any company would ever have the courage to enforce its HR rules against workplace bullying to the same extent they enforce their diversity and inclusion rules.
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2022, 12:38:46 AMI was very surprised it came to that, not because it wasn't the right thing to do, but because I didn't think WP had the balls to do that. Just yesterday I was wondering if any company would ever have the courage to enforce its HR rules against workplace bullying to the same extent they enforce their diversity and inclusion rules.
:huh:
Bullying and harassment policies are well established and are commonly used. The same cannot be said for DEI policies.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 10, 2022, 05:55:12 AMQuote from: DGuller on June 10, 2022, 12:38:46 AMI was very surprised it came to that, not because it wasn't the right thing to do, but because I didn't think WP had the balls to do that. Just yesterday I was wondering if any company would ever have the courage to enforce its HR rules against workplace bullying to the same extent they enforce their diversity and inclusion rules.
:huh:
Bullying and harassment policies are well established and are commonly used. The same cannot be said for DEI policies.
Source?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2022, 06:30:15 PMFelicia Sonmez just got canned.
Also madness - and the single easiest way to make this story keep going with more attention (and lawsuits) for the Washington Post.
Was there no-one in the room to tell everyone to just calm down :blink:
QuoteYes - that's one of the main difference between being an intellectual and hogging for attention. An intellectual usually has to venture out of their area of expertise (otherwise, they are just experts). But it takes time to reflect, and intervene properly. The constant need for reaction encourages people to go for low-hanging fruit with quick dopamine fix...
There's a few professions that could benefit from a little "don't let daylight in on magic" right now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2022, 02:49:19 PMAlso madness - and the single easiest way to make this story keep going with more attention (and lawsuits) for the Washington Post.
Was there no-one in the room to tell everyone to just calm down :blink:
My impression is that everyone was indeed told to calm down, and the fact that she continued was the insubordination part.
I don't think it was mad to fire her, but it was brave, for obvious reasons. You just can't have an employee who continues publicly shitting on their co-workers, you also have to consider the well-being of everyone else on your team.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2022, 02:49:19 PMQuote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2022, 06:30:15 PMFelicia Sonmez just got canned.
Also madness - and the single easiest way to make this story keep going with more attention (and lawsuits) for the Washington Post.
Not sure it's madness.
Will there be a burst of attention now? Yes. Will there be a lawsuit? Yes.
But the lawsuit won't be heard for a year or two, and will likely be settled anyways. They'll have to pay Sonmez something, but now she's no longer a WaPo employee and will attract less attention going forward vis-a-vis anything to do with WaPo.
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2022, 03:14:13 PMNot sure it's madness.
Will there be a burst of attention now? Yes. Will there be a lawsuit? Yes.
But the lawsuit won't be heard for a year or two, and will likely be settled anyways. They'll have to pay Sonmez something, but now she's no longer a WaPo employee and will attract less attention going forward vis-a-vis anything to do with WaPo.
I meant it's madness in that the entire situation just got wildly out of hand. I think this is also an overreaction just as Weigel's suspension was.
You might be right that it's worth it for the Post - but I'm not sure. She's a prominent journalist who's worked for them, the WSJ, AFP - I'm not convinced a firing will make this go away. Also the court hearings may be a year away but that will be an absolute delight to report on for all of the Post's competitors.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2022, 03:26:49 PMQuote from: Barrister on June 10, 2022, 03:14:13 PMNot sure it's madness.
Will there be a burst of attention now? Yes. Will there be a lawsuit? Yes.
But the lawsuit won't be heard for a year or two, and will likely be settled anyways. They'll have to pay Sonmez something, but now she's no longer a WaPo employee and will attract less attention going forward vis-a-vis anything to do with WaPo.
I meant it's madness in that the entire situation just got wildly out of hand. I think this is also an overreaction just as Weigel's suspension was.
You might be right that it's worth it for the Post - but I'm not sure. She's a prominent journalist who's worked for them, the WSJ, AFP - I'm not convinced a firing will make this go away. Also the court hearings may be a year away but that will be an absolute delight to report on for all of the Post's competitor
So they should let someone slander them and their employees forever without consequence because otherwise their competitors might report on them not letting that happen?
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2022, 03:32:48 PMSo they should let someone slander them and their employees forever without consequence because otherwise their competitors might report on them not letting that happen?
My base position is that the entire thing got out of hand and none of this should have been public. In my view they'd probably be best trying to get it back in-house and dealt with in that way - I don't quite know what you would have needed to do to get there and there's a judgement call on that.
On your question - maybe. The difference here is that she's a reporter who they've employed. But there will be examples in every media organisation, I imagine, of prominent columnists or commentators who are known for awful workplace behaviour who are kept on because of all sorts of bad resons. They may have a devoted following of readers, just be good (or surprisingly affordable) at their job, or you know they'll spend their time after they've been fired slagging you off.
I mentioned earlier but I know papers here who have had issues of very prominent reporters or columnists (normally freelancers/not staff) publicly going after junior reporters for some reason - maybe something personal or from the office - or routinely attacking the way their paper covers/frames an issue. When it's done on social media given the size of the following a big commentator or star reporter is likely to have it's tough not to see it as instigating pile-ons. But they'd rather have that bigger star writing for them than a competitor.
My guess, Sheilbh, is that some of the participants refused to play ball when it came to keep or bring it in-house.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2022, 03:26:49 PMI meant it's madness in that the entire situation just got wildly out of hand. I think this is also an overreaction just as Weigel's suspension was.
The reason it got wildly out of hand is that Sonmez told her bosses to fuck off when they repeatedly told her to stop publicly attacking fellow employees. I think that a one-month suspension would have been a better move, with the lifting of the suspension conditional on her agreeing to not attack Post employees publicly.
Quote from: grumbler on June 10, 2022, 10:57:27 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2022, 03:26:49 PMI meant it's madness in that the entire situation just got wildly out of hand. I think this is also an overreaction just as Weigel's suspension was.
The reason it got wildly out of hand is that Sonmez told her bosses to fuck off when they repeatedly told her to stop publicly attacking fellow employees. I think that a one-month suspension would have been a better move, with the lifting of the suspension conditional on her agreeing to not attack Post employees publicly.
I can't think of any other job where publicly attacking a co-worker and telling the boss to fuck off when warned about it would not result in immediate termination.
Quote from: grumbler on June 10, 2022, 10:57:27 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2022, 03:26:49 PMI meant it's madness in that the entire situation just got wildly out of hand. I think this is also an overreaction just as Weigel's suspension was.
The reason it got wildly out of hand is that Sonmez told her bosses to fuck off when they repeatedly told her to stop publicly attacking fellow employees. I think that a one-month suspension would have been a better move, with the lifting of the suspension conditional on her agreeing to not attack Post employees publicly.
Yeah, she probably made a clearly insubordinate statement along those lines. Otherwise it would have been very risky to terminate.
Quote from: chipwich on June 10, 2022, 11:46:08 PMI can't think of any other job where publicly attacking a co-worker and telling the boss to fuck off when warned about it would not result in immediate termination.
I can think of many jobs where management might understand that a valuable employee has simply lost emotional control and would rather salvage the valuable employee rather than terminating them. We don't know enough to say whether this was a possibility here or not, but on the surface it seems like this was not the behavior Sonmez usually exhibited.
Quote from: grumbler on June 11, 2022, 12:55:43 PMvaluable employee
There are lots of journalists who are suited to replace her.
Considering her recent turbulent history with the Post I'm fairly sure they were looking for a chance to let her go at some point. I don't think they imagined it quite like this though :lol:
Anyway, she got like 112k followers on Twitter. She has a big brand now. She'll be fine.
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 11, 2022, 03:36:55 PMAnyway, she got like 112k followers on Twitter. She has a big brand now. She'll be fine.
Is that a lot?
I'm not a big twitter person. But by YouTube standards that's... Decent. Good beer money numbers. But not something to make a full time career or be particularly well known off.
Seems very impressive for a random person but not for someone whose job is to be read.
I dunno, there are youtubers with 40k followers who post daily, I'd assume it's their main job.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 06, 2022, 02:47:11 AMAre there many examples of people's freedom to speak being majorly impacted by "cancellations"? I have yet to see anyone forced to censor themselves unless they really want to use racist rhetoric without consequences. Heck, many of those "cancelled" are ranting about it in major national media - doesn't seem their freedom of speech was impacted at all.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/campus-free-speech-self-censorship/661282/?utm_medium=social&utm_term=2022-06-16T11%3A01%3A56&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&fbclid=IwAR3QdmTJ5Jgavne-Hf5PgpEfg-RG7o5v7vayHTDXq5B7iZuo69sHEAMV5K4
QuoteBut the same study also reflects the impression I got from talking with countless students: Although they are keen to discuss big ideas, many fear doing so. Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed agreed that "the climate on my campus prevents some people from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive." This was a significant increase compared with the first time a pollster asked the question, in 2019.
Other recent studies show that students don't just worry that their classmates might self-censor; a great many do so themselves. According to a large-scale survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, four out of 10 students around the country said that they would feel uncomfortable expressing views about "a controversial political topic to other students during a discussion in a common campus space, such as a quad, dining hall, or lounge." Nearly six out of 10 said that they would hesitate to publicly disagree with a professor. More than eight out of 10 reported self-censoring at least some of the time. "Though I hold liberal views," one student at Stony Brook University told the pollsters, "in some topics my views are more conservative and I'm afraid of being labeled something I am clearly not."
The bold is my own, since it directly reflects exactly how I feel, and precisely what happens right her on Languish every single time this issue comes up.
QuoteTo a great degree, though, the problem lies outside the classroom. Many students have seen classmates shamed and ostracized after they were "called out" on social media for something supposedly offensive. They know that the small minority of their classmates who enjoy acting as ideological enforcers has outsize power. And they see that their colleges often add fuel to the fire by investigating students for saying something controversial or even encouraging them to denounce one another to an anonymous hotline for "microaggressions." The majority of students, who aren't especially argumentative or ideological, understandably conclude that the most rational response is to hold their tongue.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2022, 10:12:36 PMThe bold is my own, since it directly reflects exactly how I feel, and precisely what happens right her on Languish every single time this issue comes up.
QuoteTo a great degree, though, the problem lies outside the classroom. Many students have seen classmates shamed and ostracized after they were "called out" on social media for something supposedly offensive. They know that the small minority of their classmates who enjoy acting as ideological enforcers has outsize power. And they see that their colleges often add fuel to the fire by investigating students for saying something controversial or even encouraging them to denounce one another to an anonymous hotline for "microaggressions." The majority of students, who aren't especially argumentative or ideological, understandably conclude that the most rational response is to hold their tongue.
Children ostracizing other students? Never happened before 'cancel culture.'
When I was in school I remember hearing some girls were goths.
This was a very bad thing.
Meant they were Satan worshippers and killed rabbits for blood sacrifices and god knows what.
Turns out...
They just liked some really crappy teeny pop rock band but to the club music addled (new monkey...) brains of the average kid of my area in the late 90s any music with a guitar made one a goth.
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2022, 02:52:20 AMQuote from: Berkut on June 17, 2022, 10:12:36 PMThe bold is my own, since it directly reflects exactly how I feel, and precisely what happens right her on Languish every single time this issue comes up.
QuoteTo a great degree, though, the problem lies outside the classroom. Many students have seen classmates shamed and ostracized after they were "called out" on social media for something supposedly offensive. They know that the small minority of their classmates who enjoy acting as ideological enforcers has outsize power. And they see that their colleges often add fuel to the fire by investigating students for saying something controversial or even encouraging them to denounce one another to an anonymous hotline for "microaggressions." The majority of students, who aren't especially argumentative or ideological, understandably conclude that the most rational response is to hold their tongue.
Children ostracizing other students? Never happened before 'cancel culture.'
Yeah, but that was good old American values ostracization, like race or gender, not this new fangled one based on ideas and values!
;)
I think cancel culture is mainly over blown and blaming the phenomenon on something new actually makes it harder to combat where it's warranted.
As the author acknowledges, there are considerable flaws in methodology of the polls he cites, which he simply waves away.
But good click bait for those trying to find justification for their views.
Exactly - the Atlantic is known for their click bait.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu9JGK_yHo&ab_channel=RealTimewithBillMaher
Bill Maher on the WaPo nonsense.
As an epilogue to that sorry snowflake story
Are American college students children? Would explain a lot I guess.
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2022, 02:52:20 AMQuote from: Berkut on June 17, 2022, 10:12:36 PMThe bold is my own, since it directly reflects exactly how I feel, and precisely what happens right her on Languish every single time this issue comes up.
QuoteTo a great degree, though, the problem lies outside the classroom. Many students have seen classmates shamed and ostracized after they were "called out" on social media for something supposedly offensive. They know that the small minority of their classmates who enjoy acting as ideological enforcers has outsize power. And they see that their colleges often add fuel to the fire by investigating students for saying something controversial or even encouraging them to denounce one another to an anonymous hotline for "microaggressions." The majority of students, who aren't especially argumentative or ideological, understandably conclude that the most rational response is to hold their tongue.
Children ostracizing other students? Never happened before 'cancel culture.'
It is not just kids at college., It certainly happens to a systematically destructive degree in progressive political organizations. I find it rather disconcerting that right at the moment Roe vs Wade is under attack so many of the organizations that are supposed to be fighting for reproductive rights are struggling with internal navel gazing and call out shit. Along with dozens of other important causes. This has real negative impacts on real people.
https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-infighting-callout-culture/
QuoteEVERYONE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT Zoom was less than ideal as a forum for a heartfelt conversation on systemic racism and policing. But the meeting was urgent, and, a little more than two months into the Covid-19 lockdown, it would have to do.
During the first week of June 2020, teams of workers and their managers came together across the country to share how they were responding to the murder of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis and to chart out what — if anything — their own company or nonprofit could do to contribute toward the reckoning with racial injustice that was rapidly taking shape.
On June 2, one such huddle was organized by the Washington, D.C., office of the Guttmacher Institute, the abortion rights movement's premier research organization.
Heather Boonstra, vice president of public policy, began by asking how people were "finding equilibrium" — one of the details we know because it was later shared by staff with Prism, an outlet that covers social justice advocacy and the impacts of injustice.
She talked about the role systemic racism plays in society and the ways that Guttmacher's work could counter it. Staff suggestions, though, turned inward, Prism reported, "including loosening deadlines and implementing more proactive and explicit policies for leave without penalty." Staffers suggested additional racial equity trainings, noting that a previous facilitator had said that the last round had not included sufficient time "to cover everything." With no Black staff in the D.C. unit, it was suggested that "Guttmacher do something tangible for Black employees in other divisions."
Behind Boonstra's and the staff's responses to the killing was a fundamentally different understanding of the moment. For Boonstra and others of her generation, the focus should have been on the work of the nonprofit: What could Guttmacher, with an annual budget of nearly $30 million, do now to make the world a better place? For her staff, that question had to be answered at home first: What could they do to make Guttmacher a better place? Too often, they believed, managers exploited the moral commitment staff felt toward their mission, allowing workplace abuses to go unchecked.
The belief was widespread. In the eyes of group leaders dealing with similar moments, staff were ignoring the mission and focusing only on themselves, using a moment of public awakening to smuggle through standard grievances cloaked in the language of social justice. Often, as was the case at Guttmacher, they played into the very dynamics they were fighting against, directing their complaints at leaders of color. Guttmacher was run at the time, and still is today, by an Afro Latina woman, Dr. Herminia Palacio. "The most zealous ones at my organization when it comes to race are white," said one Black executive director at a different organization, asking for anonymity so as not to provoke a response from that staff.
These starkly divergent views would produce dramatic schisms throughout the progressive world in the coming year. At Guttmacher, this process would rip the organization apart. Boonstra, unlike many managers at the time, didn't sugarcoat how she felt about the staff's response to the killing.
"I'm here to talk about George Floyd and the other African American men who have been beaten up by society," she told her staff, not "workplace problems." Boonstra told them she was "disappointed," that they were being "self-centered." The staff was appalled enough by the exchange to relay it to Prism.
The human resources department and board of directors, in consultation with outside counsel, were brought in to investigate complaints that flowed from the meeting, including accusations that certain staff members had been tokenized, promoted, and then demoted on the basis of race. The resulting report was unsatisfying to many of the staff.
"What we have learned is that there is a group of people with strong opinions about a particular supervisor, the new leadership, and a change in strategic priorities," said a Guttmacher statement summarizing the findings. "Those staff have a point of view. Complaints were duly investigated and nothing raised to the level of abuse or discrimination. Rather, what we saw was distrust, disagreement, and discontent with management decisions they simply did not like."
A Prism reporter reached a widely respected Guttmacher board member, Pamela Merritt, a Black woman and a leading reproductive justice activist, while the Supreme Court oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization were going on last December, a year and a half after the Floyd meeting. She offered the most delicate rebuttal of the staff complaints possible.
"I have been in this movement space long enough to respect how people choose to describe their personal experience and validate that experience, even if I don't necessarily agree that that's what they experienced," Merritt said. "It seems like there's a conflation between not reaching the conclusion that people want and not doing due diligence on the allegations, which simply is not true." Boonstra did not respond to a request to talk from either Prism or The Intercept.
The six months since then have only seen a ratcheting up of the tension, with more internal disputes spilling into public and amplified by a well-funded, anonymous operation called ReproJobs, whose Twitter and Instagram feeds have pounded away at the organization's management. "If your reproductive justice organization isn't Black and brown it's white supremacy in heels co-opting a WOC movement," blared a typical missive submitted to and republished on one of its Instagram stories. The news, in May 2022, that Roe v. Wade would almost certainly be overturned did nothing to temper the raging battle. (ReproJobs told The Intercept its current budget is around $275,000.)
That the institute has spent the course of the Biden administration paralyzed makes it typical of not just the abortion rights community — Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and other reproductive health organizations had similarly been locked in knock-down, drag-out fights between competing factions of their organizations, most often breaking down along staff-versus-management lines. It's also true of the progressive advocacy space across the board, which has, more or less, effectively ceased to function. The Sierra Club, Demos, the American Civil Liberties Union, Color of Change, the Movement for Black Lives, Human Rights Campaign, Time's Up, the Sunrise Movement, and many other organizations have seen wrenching and debilitating turmoil in the past couple years.
In fact, it's hard to find a Washington-based progressive organization that hasn't been in tumult, or isn't currently in tumult. It even reached the National Audubon Society, as Politico reported in August 2021:
"Following a botched diversity meeting, a highly critical employee survey and the resignations of two top diversity and inclusion officials, the 600,000-member National Audubon Society is confronting allegations that it maintains a culture of retaliation, fear and antagonism toward women and people of color, according to interviews with 13 current and former staff members."
Twitter, as the saying goes, may not be real life, but in a world of remote work, Slack very much is. And Twitter, Slack, Zoom, and the office space, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former executive directors of advocacy organizations, are now mixing in a way that is no longer able to be ignored by a progressive movement that wants organizations to be able to function. The executive directors largely spoke on the condition of anonymity, for fear of angering staff or donors.
"To be honest with you, this is the biggest problem on the left over the last six years," one concluded. "This is so big. And it's like abuse in the family — it's the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. And you have to be super sensitive about who the messengers are."
For a number of obvious and intersecting reasons — my race, gender, and generation — I am not the perfect messenger. But here it goes anyway.
FOR PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT organizations, 2021 promised to be the year they turned power into policy, with a Democratic trifecta and the Biden administration broadcasting a bold vision of "transformational change." Out of the gate, Democrats pushed ahead with the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, funding everything from expanded health care to a new monthly child tax credit. Republican efforts to slow-walk the process with disingenuous counteroffers were simply dismissed.
And then, sometime in the summer, the forward momentum stalled, and many of the progressive gains lapsed or were reversed. Instead of fueling a groundswell of public support to reinvigorate the party's ambitious agenda, most of the foundation-backed organizations that make up the backbone of the party's ideological infrastructure were still spending their time locked in virtual retreats, Slack wars, and healing sessions, grappling with tensions over hierarchy, patriarchy, race, gender, and power.
"So much energy has been devoted to the internal strife and internal bullshit that it's had a real impact on the ability for groups to deliver," said one organization leader who departed his position. "It's been huge, particularly over the last year and a half or so, the ability for groups to focus on their mission, whether it's reproductive justice, or jobs, or fighting climate change."
This is, of course, a caricature of the left: that socialists and communists spend more time in meetings and fighting with each other than changing the world. But in the wake of Donald Trump's presidential election, and then Joe Biden's, it has become nearly all-consuming for some organizations, spreading beyond subcultures of the left and into major liberal institutions. "My last nine months, I was spending 90 to 95 percent of my time on internal strife. Whereas [before] that would have been 25-30 percent tops," the former executive director said. He added that the same portion of his deputies' time was similarly spent on internal reckonings.
"Most people thought that their worst critics were their competitors, and they're finding out that their worst critics are on their own payroll," said Loretta Ross, an author and activist who has been prominent in the movement for decades, having founded the reproductive justice collective SisterSong.
"We're dealing with a workforce that's becoming younger, more female, more people of color, more politically woke — I hate to use that term in a way it shouldn't be used — and less loyal in the traditional way to a job, because the whole economic rationale for keeping a job or having a job has changed." That lack of loyalty is not the fault of employees, Ross said, but was foisted on them by a precarious economy that broke the professional-social contract. That has left workers with less patience for inequities in the workplace.
"All my ED [executive director] friends, everybody's going through some shit, nobody's immune," said one who has yet to depart.
One senior progressive congressional staffer said that when groups don't disappear entirely to deal with internal strife, the discord is still noticeable on the other end. "I've noticed a real erosion of the number of groups who are effective at leveraging progressive power in Congress. Some of that is these groups have these organizational culture things that are affecting them," the staffer said. "Because of the organizational culture of some of the real movement groups that have lots of chapters, what they're lobbying on isn't relevant to the actual fights in Congress. Some of these groups are in Overton mode when we have a trifecta."
The idea, in theory, is that pushing their public policy demands further and further left widens the so-called Overton window of what's considered possible, thereby facilitating the future passage of ambitious legislation. Those maximalist political demands can also be a byproduct of internal strife, as organization leaders fend off charges of not internally embodying progressive values by pushing external rhetoric further left.
But, the aide pointed out, there is legislative potential now. "There are wins to be had between now and the next couple months that could change the country forever, and folks are focused on stuff that has no theory of change for even getting to the House floor for a vote."
"Sunrise is doing their Green New Deal pledge," the aide continued, describing the Sunrise Movement-led effort to get elected officials and candidates to sign on to an ambitious climate commitment. "The climate bill is still on the table. ... There's a universe where people are on the outside, focused on power and leveraging power for progressives in Congress. Instead, they're spending resources on stuff that is totally unrelated to governing. Nobody says, 'Hey guys, could you maybe come and maybe focus on this?'"
The silence stems partly, one senior leader in an organization said, from a fear of feeding right-wing trolls who are working to undermine the left. Adopting their language and framing feels like surrendering to malign forces, but ignoring it has only allowed the issues to fester. "The right has labeled it 'cancel culture' or 'callout culture,'" he said, "so when we talk about our own movement, it's hard because we're using the frame of the right. It's very hard because there's all these associations and analysis that we disagree with, when we're using their frame. So it's like, 'How do we talk about it?'"
For years, recruiting young people into the movement felt like a win-win, he said: new energy for the movement and the chance to give a person a lease on a newly liberated life, dedicated to the pursuit of justice. But that's no longer the case. "I got to a point like three years ago where I had a crisis of faith, like, I don't even know, most of these spaces on the left are just not — they're not healthy. Like all these people are just not — they're not doing well," he said. "The dynamic, the toxic dynamic of whatever you want to call it — callout culture, cancel culture, whatever — is creating this really intense thing, and no one is able to acknowledge it, no one's able to talk about it, no one's able to say how bad it is."
The environment has pushed expectations far beyond what workplaces previously offered to employees. "A lot of staff that work for me, they expect the organization to be all the things: a movement, OK, get out the vote, OK, healing, OK, take care of you when you're sick, OK. It's all the things," said one executive director. "Can you get your love and healing at home, please? But I can't say that, they would crucify me."
HAT'S DRIVING THE upheaval can't be disentangled from the broader cultural debates about speech, power, race, sexuality, and gender that have shaken institutions in recent years. Netflix, for instance, made news recently by laying off 290 staffers — a move described by the tabloid press as targeting the "wokest" workers — in the midst of roiling tensions at the streaming company.
"It's not just the nonprofit world, though, so let's be clear," said Ross. "I started a for-profit consulting firm last year with three other partners, because every C-suite that's trying to be progressive is undergoing the same kind of callout culture. And so it's happening societywide." Business, she said, is booming, but the implications have been especially pronounced within progressive institutions, given their explicit embrace of progressive values.
Sooner or later, each interview for this story landed on the election of Trump in 2016 as a catalyst. Whatever internal tension had been pulling at the seams of organizations in the years prior, Trump's shock victory sharpened the focus of activists and regular people alike. The institutional progressive world based in Washington, D.C., reacted slowly, shell-shocked and unsure of its place, but people outside those institutions raced ahead of them. A period of mourning turned into fierce determination to resist. Spontaneous women's marches were called in scores of cities, drawing as many as 5 million people, a shocking display of force. (Their collapse in a heap of identitarian recriminations is its own parable for this moment.)
New grassroots organizations like Indivisible sprang up, and old ones were rejuvenated with new volunteers and hundreds of millions of dollars from small donors across the country. The ACLU alone collected almost $1 million within 24 hours of Trump's election and tens of millions more over the next year. Airports were flooded with protesters when Trump announced his so-called Muslim ban. Fueled by that anger, Democrats stormed back into control of the House in 2018, with a vibrant insurgent wing toppling the would-be speaker, Rep. Joe Crowley, and electing the most progressive freshman class ever.
After that election, incoming Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez teamed with the Sunrise Movement and Justice Democrats to occupy House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's congressional office to demand a Green New Deal. The protest put the issue on the map, and soon nearly every Democratic candidate for president was embracing it. But it was one of the only examples over the past five years of an organized, intentional intervention into the political conversation, which otherwise has been relatively leaderless and without focus. Presidential campaigns, particularly those of Sen. Bernie Sanders for the left, and midterms provide a natural funnel for activist energy, but once they're over, the demobilization comes quickly. That emptiness has been filled by infighting, and the fissures that are now engulfing everything in sight began to form early.
In August 2017, when a rising "alt-right" organized a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, the ACLU went to court to defend the right to march on First Amendment grounds, as it had famously done for generations. When a right-wing demonstrator plowed his car into a crowd, he killed counterprotester Heather Heyer and wounded dozens of others.
Internally, staff at the ACLU, concentrated among the younger people there, condemned the decision to defend the rally. Veteran lawyers at the ACLU complained to the New York Times that the new generation "placed less value on free speech, making it uncomfortable for them to express views internally that diverged from progressive orthodoxy."
Alejandro Agustín Ortiz, a lawyer with the organization's racial justice project, told the Times that "a dogmatism descends sometimes."
"You hesitate before you question a belief that is ascendant among your peer group," he said.
National Legal Director David Cole stood by the decision to defend the rally in a New York Review of Books essay. "We protect the First Amendment not only because it is the lifeblood of democracy and an indispensable element of freedom, but because it is the guarantor of civil society itself," he wrote.
Around 200 staff members responded with a letter slamming the essay as "'oblivious' to the ACLU's institutional racism," the New York Times reported, noting that 12 of the organization's top 21 leaders were Black, Latino, or Asian and 14 were women.
Under pressure, the ACLU said it would dial back its defense of free speech. Wrote the Times: "Revulsion swelled within the A.C.L.U., and many assailed its executive director, Anthony Romero, and legal director, Mr. Cole, as privileged and clueless. The A.C.L.U. unfurled new guidelines that suggested lawyers should balance taking a free speech case representing right-wing groups whose 'values are contrary to our values' against the potential such a case might give 'offense to marginalized groups.'"
An internal dispute over the organization's absolutist commitment to free speech is to be expected after such a tragedy. But the conflict mushroomed; instead of finding common ground on the question, it became fodder for endless and sprawling internal microbattles.
The Times article on the ACLU infighting was published in September 2021, more than four years after the event that triggered it, and there's no sign of the tensions easing. Such prolonged combat has become standard, whether the triggering event is a cataclysmic one like Charlottesville or more prosaic, like a retweet of an offensive joke by a Washington Post reporter. The initial event prompts a response from staff, which is met by management with a memo or a town hall; in either case, the meeting or the organizationwide message often produces its own cause for new offense, a self-reproducing cycle that sucks in more and more people within the organization, who have either been offended, accused of giving offense, or both, along with their colleagues who are required to pick a side.
At the ACLU, as at many organizations, the controversy quickly evolved to include charges that senior leaders were hostile to staff from marginalized communities. Each accusation is unique; some have obvious merit, while others don't withstand scrutiny. What emerges by zooming out is the striking similarity of their trajectories. One foundation official who has funded many of the groups entangled in turmoil said that having a panoramic view allowed her to see those common threads. "It's the kind of thing that looks very context-specific, until you see a larger pattern," she said.
Things get very ugly, she noted, and the overlapping crises of Trump, Covid, and looming climate collapse have produced extreme anxiety. Under siege, many leaders cling more tightly to their hold on power, she said, "taking shelter in professional nonprofit spaces because they think clinging to a sinking ship and hanging on as long and strongly as possible is the best bet they can make for their own personal survival."
THREE YEARS OF post-Trump tensions crashed head-on into a pandemic lockdown and the uprising following the police murder of Floyd.
Progressive organizations convened meetings to work through their response, and, like at Guttmacher, many of them left staff extremely unsatisfied. A looming sense of powerlessness on the left nudged the focus away from structural or wide-reaching change, which felt out of reach, and replaced it with an internal target that was more achievable. "Maybe I can't end racism by myself, but I can get my manager fired, or I can get so and so removed, or I can hold somebody accountable," one former executive director said. "People found power where they could, and often that's where you work, sometimes where you live, or where you study, but someplace close to home."
Too much hype about what was possible electorally also played a role, said another leader. "Unrealistic expectations about what could be achieved through the electoral and legislative process has led us to give up on persuasion and believe convenient myths that we can change everything by 'mobilizing' a mythological 'base,'" he said. "This has led to navel-gazing and constant rehashing of internal culture debates, because the progressive movement is no longer convinced it can have an impact on the external world."
Things were also tense because of Covid. Jonathan Smucker is the author of the book "Hegemony How-To: A Roadmap for Radicals" and trains and advises activists across the movement spectrum. After the pandemic forced people into quarantine in March 2020, he noted, many workplaces turned into pressure cookers. "COVID has severely limited in-person tactical options, and in-person face-to-face activities are absolutely vital to volunteer-driven efforts," he wrote to The Intercept. "Without these spaces, staff are more likely to become insular – a tendency that's hard enough to combat even without this shift. Moreover, the virtual environment (zoom meetings) may be convenient for all kinds of reasons, but it's a pretty lousy medium once there's conflict in an organization. In-person face-to-face time, in my experience, is irreplaceable when it comes to moving constructively through conflict. I know this is not the full picture and probably not even the root of these problems or conflicts, but it's almost certainly exacerbating them."
The histories of the organizations were scoured for evidence of white supremacy, and nobody had to look very hard. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was posthumously rebuked for her dalliance with eugenics, and her name was stripped in July 2020 from the headquarters of its New York affiliate. (In 2011, I won a "Planned Parenthood Maggie Award for Online Reporting," which I still have.)
At the Sierra Club, then-Executive Director Michael Brune published a statement headlined "Pulling Down Our Monuments," calling out founder John Muir for his association with eugenicists. "Muir was not immune to the racism peddled by many in the early conservation movement. He made derogatory comments about Black people and Indigenous peoples that drew on deeply harmful racist stereotypes, though his views evolved later in his life," Brune wrote that July, adding:
"For all the harms the Sierra Club has caused, and continues to cause, to Black people, Indigenous people, and other people of color, I am deeply sorry. I know that apologies are empty unless accompanied by a commitment to change. I am making that commitment, publicly, right now. And I invite you to hold me and other Sierra Club leaders, staff, and volunteers accountable whenever we don't live up to our commitment to becoming an actively anti-racist organization."
Brune came to the Sierra Club, the environmental group founded in 1892, from Greenpeace and the anarchist-influenced Rainforest Action Network in 2010. He was considered at the time a radical choice to run the staid organization. Brune didn't last the summer.
The progressive congressional aide said the Sierra Club infighting that led to his departure was evident from the outside. "It caused so much internal churn that they stopped being engaged in any serious way at a really critical moment during Build Back Better," the aide said.
Then the Sierra Club's structure, which has relied on thousands of volunteers, many empowered with significant responsibility, also came under scrutiny after a volunteer was accused of rape. The consulting firm Ramona Strategies was brought in for an extensive "restorative accountability process" that The Intercept described last summer as an "internal reckoning around race, gender, and sexual as well as other abuse allegations."
"Being a 'volunteer-led' organization cannot stand for volunteers having carte blanche to ignore legal requirements or organizational values around equity and inclusivity — or basic human decency," the consultant's report stated. "All employees should be managed by and subject to the oversight of individuals also under the organization's clear control and direction as employees. There is no other way we can see."
The recommendation was the logical dead-end point of the inward focus. Having only employees and no volunteers — or, in the case of Everytown for Gun Safety, asking volunteers to sign nondisclosure agreements — would render moot the structure of most major movement groups, such as Indivisible, Sunrise, MoveOn, the NAACP, and so on.
The reckoning was in many ways long overdue, forcing organizations to deal with persistent problems of inclusion, equity, and poor management. "Progressive organizations are run like shit," acknowledged one executive director, arguing that the movement puts emphasis on leadership — more often called "servant leadership" now — but not enough on basic management. "I have all the degrees, but I don't have a management degree."
In the long term, the organizations may become better versions of themselves while finally living the values they've long fought for. In the short term, the battles between staff and organizational leadership have effectively sidelined major progressive institutions at a critical moment in U.S. and world history. "We used to want to make the world a better place," said one leader of a progressive organization. "Now we just make our organizations more miserable to work at."
THEORISTS HAVE DEVELOPED sophisticated ways to understand how political movements evolve over time. Bill Moyer, a former organizer with Martin Luther King Jr.'s Poor People's Campaign who went on to lead the anti-nuclear movement, famously documented eight stages in his "Movement Action Plan." (Others have subsequently simplified it to four seasons that roughly map to the same waves.)
Stage one he called normal times, the period before the public is paying much attention to an issue, while only a few activists are working to develop solutions and tactics. Stage two is failure of institutions, as the public and activists more generally become aware of a problem and the need for change. This is early spring, which then evolves into stage three, ripening conditions. To take the civil rights movement as an example, Brown v. Board of Education helped ripen conditions, as did a rising Black college student population after World War II and the return of Black veterans from the war more generally, along with a surge in anti-colonial freedom struggles across Africa. The conditions are set.
Next comes a trigger event that shocks the conscience of the public, allowing the movement activists who've been at work on an issue to seize the moment, creating stage four, when social movements really take off. Rosa Parks was by no means the first Black woman arrested for refusing to go to the back of the bus, nor was Trayvon Martin the first Black teen to be shot by a vigilante, nor was Michael Brown the first Black teen to be killed by a police officer. But the events came at a time when the public was primed to see them as symptomatic of a broader social ill that needed to be confronted. Springtime for social movements is a time of great promise, optimism, and surging momentum, when the previously unthinkable comes within grasp. In 1957, Congress passed the first Civil Rights Act since Reconstruction.
But before it passed the Senate, it was stripped of its enforcement mechanisms, leaving much of the South still ruled by Jim Crow, helping produce the fifth stage, in which activists confront powerful obstacles and despair sets in. "After a year or two, the high hopes of movement take-off seems inevitably to turn into despair," Moyer wrote. "Most activists lose their faith that success is just around the corner and come to believe that it is never going to happen. They perceive that the powerholders are too strong, their movement has failed, and their own efforts have been futile. Most surprising is the fact that this identity crisis of powerlessness and failure happens when the movement is outrageously successful—when the movement has just achieved all of the goals of the take-off stage within two years."
Stage five happens coincidentally — and paradoxically — with stage six: majority public support. This is the period of time during which the movement has won over the public, with surveys showing two-thirds or more of the public siding with it on its question. Some elements of the movement adapt to this new environment and craft strategy to lock in gains, while other elements misread the moment and continue fighting as insurgents and outsiders.
This is the summer and fall period for a movement, followed inevitably by winter. Moyer calls stage seven success and stage eight "continuing the struggle," but activists have wildly different ideas about the meaning of success, with most seeing nothing but failure, even as they might acknowledge that, say, life was far more free for a Black American in 1977 than 1957.
Where does that put us today? The period since Occupy Wall Street represents the single largest mass mobilization since the 1960s and encompassed the Movement for Black Lives; the Women's March, #MeToo, and the broader resistance to the Trump administration; climate activism, the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline and for the Green New Deal; Sandy Hook, Parkland, and March for Our Lives; the presidential campaigns in 2016 and 2020 of Sanders, topped off by global mass protests in the wake of the murder of Floyd.
But summer has turned to fall. Or is it winter? The seizing of a trifecta in Washington by Democrats has coincided with a mass social movement demobilization. Those activated by Trump have stepped back. Democratic leaders spent more energy attacking the phrase "defund the police" than they invested in police reform, which died in the Senate without a vote. Johnny Depp rode the backlash to a $15 million defamation verdict.
In moments of political winter, turning inward or simply stepping out of the movement is common. The year 1968 saw an explosion of activism, capping more than a decade of progress that had been made in fits and starts. The Civil Rights Act of 1968, known as the Fair Housing Act, was signed into law during the riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. The Democratic National Convention in Chicago turned into a police riot, and protests against the Vietnam War surged. The November election of Richard Nixon as president shifted the landscape. Demonstrations against the war continued, but they were never as large as those in the mid-'60s and included more radical elements advocating violent insurrection, further self-marginalizing. In 1969, a faction of activists took over Students for a Democratic Society, shut it down, and launched the Weather Underground in its place, declaring war on the United States and carrying out multiple attacks. The "back-to-the-land" movement saw young people dropping out of society and joining communes. The Black Panther Party was crushed and collapsed.
Mark Rudd, an early member of SDS, helped convert it to the Weather Underground, a role he now regrets. "After the war was over, a lot of the left went on a complete and total dead end," he said. "We don't want power. We're allergic to it. It's not in our DNA. We don't like coercion. We don't like hegemony."
Winning power requires working in coalition with people who, by definition, do not agree with you on everything; otherwise they'd be part of your organization and not a separate organization working with you in coalition. Winning power requires unity in the face of a greater opposition, which runs counter to a desire to live a just life in each moment.
"People want justice, and they want their pain acknowledged," Rudd said. "But on the other hand, if acknowledging their pain causes organizations to die, or erodes the solidarity and the coalition-building that's needed for power, it's probably not a good thing. In other words, it can lead to the opposite, more power for the fascists."
Rudd spent seven years as a fugitive after the Weather Underground began to fall apart and later served a prison sentence. ("I was a total nutcase," he said of his previous politics.) He has since returned to activism, but no amount of history in the movement can immunize anyone from a callout. Asked about the turmoil engulfing left-wing organizations, he said he had personal experience. "I have myself encountered it multiple times in the last years. And in fact, I was thrown out of an organization that I founded because of my 'racism,'" he said. "What was my racism? When I tell people things that they didn't want to hear," he added, saying the disputes were over things like criticism he leveled at a young, nonwhite activist around the organizing of a demonstration. "I mean, it's normal. It's what's happening everywhere."
What's new is that it's now happening everywhere, whereas in previous decades it had yet to migrate out of more radical spaces. "We used to call it 'trashing,'" said Ross, the reproductive justice activist. The 1970s were a brutal period in activist spaces, documented most famously in a 1976 Ms. Magazine article and a subsequent book by feminist Jo Freeman, both called "Trashing: The Dark Side of Sisterhood." "What is 'trashing,'" she asks, "this colloquial term that expresses so much, yet explains so little?"
"It is not disagreement; it is not conflict; it is not opposition. These are perfectly ordinary phenomena which, when engaged in mutually, honestly, and not excessively, are necessary to keep an organism or organization healthy and active. Trashing is a particularly vicious form of character assassination which amounts to psychological rape. It is manipulative, dishonest, and excessive. It is occasionally disguised by the rhetoric of honest conflict, or covered up by denying that any disapproval exists at all. But it is not done to expose disagreements or resolve differences. It is done to disparage and destroy."
Ross, a Smith College professor who helped coin both the terms "reproductive justice" and, in 1977, "women of color," said that she often hears from people skeptical of her critique of callout culture. "The No. 1 thing people fear is that I'm giving a pass to white people to continue to be racist," she said. "Most Black people say, 'I am not ready to call in the racist white boy, I just ain't gonna do it.' They think it's a kindness lesson or a civility lesson, when it's really an organizing lesson that we're offering, because if someone knows if someone has made a mistake, and they know they're going to face a firing squad for having made that mistake, they're not gonna wanna come to you and be accountable to you. It is not gonna happen that way. And so the whole callout culture contradicts itself because it thwarts its own goal."
THE TIRED ONLINE debate over the question of cancel culture has been spinning for years. The question of its existence, however, has become a luxury reserved only for commentators not involved with any organization pursuing social justice. For those actively involved in the collective pursuit of a better world, the question is what to do about it, how to channel it toward its original end. "We must learn to do this before there is no one left to call out, or call we, or call us," wrote adrienne maree brown, a veteran activist in the harm reduction and abolition space, in an influential 2020 essay. The collapse of progressive institutions is forcing a question most in the movement would rather avoid answering.
It's become hard to hire leaders of unmanageable organizations. A recent article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy noted that nonprofits were having an extraordinarily hard time finding new leaders amid unprecedented levels of departures among senior officials. "We've been around for 26 years, and I haven't seen anything like this," Gayle Brandel, CEO of PNP Staffing Group, a nonprofit executive search firm, told the trade publication, explaining the difficulty in finding executives to fill the vacancies.
"The protests for racial equity in 2020 also changed many groups' and employees' perspectives and expectations," the Chronicle reported. "In some ways, it's an incredibly healthy response to both an opportunity and a set of challenges," Dan Cardinali, the outgoing CEO of Independent Sector, told the publication. "It is disruptive and, in the short term, inefficient. In the middle and long term, I'm hopeful that it will be actually a profound accelerator in our ability to be a force for the common good, for a thriving and healthy country."
Executive directors across the space said they too have tried to organize their hiring process to filter out the most disruptive potential staff. "I'm now at a point where the first thing I wonder about a job applicant is, 'How likely is this person to blow up my organization from the inside?'" said one, echoing a refrain heard repeatedly during interviews for this story. (One executive director noted that their group's high-profile association with a figure considered in social justice spaces to be problematic had gone from a burden to a boon, as the man now serves as an accidental screen, filtering out activists who'd be most likely to focus their energy on internal fights rather than the organization's mission.)
Another leader said the strife has become so destructive that it feels like an op. "I'm not saying it's a right-wing plot, because we are incredibly good at doing ourselves in, but — if you tried — you couldn't conceive of a better right-wing plot to paralyze progressive leaders by catalyzing the existing culture where internal turmoil and microcampaigns are mistaken for strategic advancement of social impact for the millions of people depending on these organizations to stave off the crushing injustices coming our way," said another longtime organization head. "Progressive leaders cannot do anything but fight inside the orgs, thereby rendering the orgs completely toothless for the external battles in play. ... Everyone is scared, and fear creates the inaction that the right wing needs to succeed in cementing a deeply unpopular agenda."
During the 2020 presidential campaign, as entry-level staffers for Sanders repeatedly agitated over internal dynamics, despite having already formed a staff union, the senator issued a directive to his campaign leadership: "Stop hiring activists." Instead, Sanders implored, according to multiple campaign sources, the campaign should focus on bringing on people interested first and foremost in doing the job they're hired to do.
There are obvious difficulties for the leadership of progressive organizations when it comes to pushing back against staff insurrections. The insurrections are done in the name of justice, and there are very real injustices at these organizations that need to be grappled with. Failing to give voice to that reality can leave the impression that group leaders are only interested in papering over internal problems and trying to hide their own failings behind the mission of the organization. And in an atmosphere of distrust, the worst intentions are assumed. Critics of this article will claim that its intention is to tell workers to sit down and shut up and suck up whatever indignities are doled out in the name of progress.
The reckoning has coincided with an awakened and belated appreciation for diversity in the upper ranks of progressive organizations. The mid-2010s saw an influx of women into top roles for the first time, many of them white, followed more recently by a slew of Black and brown leaders at most major organizations. One compared the collision of the belated respect for Black leaders and the upswell of turmoil inside institutions with the "hollow prize" thesis. The most common example of the hollow prize is the victory in the 1970s and '80s of Black mayors across the country, just as cities were being hollowed out and disempowered. Or, for instance, salaries in the medical field collapsed just as women began graduating into the field.
"I just got the keys and y'all are gonna come after me on this shit?" one executive director who said he felt like a version of those '70s-era mayors told The Intercept. "'It's white supremacy culture! It's urgent!' No motherfucker, it's Election Day. We can't move that day. Just do your job or go somewhere else."
Being Black has by no means shielded executive directors or their deputies from charges of facilitating white supremacy culture. "It's hard to have a conversation about performance," said the manager. "I'm as woke as they come, but they'll say, 'He's Black, but he's anti-Black because he fired these Black people.'" The solution, he said: "I buy them to leave, I just pay them to leave."
Inner turmoil can often begin, the managers said, with performance-based disputes that spiral into moral questions. "I also see a pattern of ... people who are not competent in their orgs getting ahead of the game by declaring that others have engaged in some kind of -ism, thereby triggering a process that protects them in that job while there's an investigation or turmoil over it," the foundation official added. Such disputes then trigger broader cultural conversations, with battle lines being drawn on each side.
The same is true on campaigns. Dianne Morales, a woman of color, saw her New York mayoral campaign blown up by a staff uprising, which included complaints of mistreatment, misogyny, and racism as well as a demand that workers be paid while on strike, which Morales noted was illegal given the campaign's use of public financing. In other cases, staff have approached local chapters of the Democratic Socialists of America to level complaints against candidates they worked or had worked for, including Ihssane Leckey, a Muslim immigrant from Morocco running for a congressional seat outside Boston; Brandy Brooks, a Black woman running for Montgomery County Council in Maryland; and Shahid Buttar, an Ahmadiyya Muslim immigrant running for Congress in San Francisco. When the chapters move to unendorse, citing toxicity inside the workplace, the campaigns are crippled.
The reliance of so many organizations on foundation funding rather than member donations is central to the upheavals the groups have seen in recent years, one group leader said, because the groups aren't accountable to the public for failing to accomplish anything, as long as the foundation flows continue. "Unlike labor unions, church groups, membership organizations, or even business lobbies, large foundations and grant-funded nonprofits aren't accountable to the people whose interests they claim to represent and have no concrete incentive to win elections or secure policy gains," they said. "The fundamental disconnect of organizations to the communities they purport to serve has led to endless 'strategic refreshes' and 'organizational resets' that have even further disconnected movements from the actual goals."
Beyond not producing incentives to function, foundations generally exacerbate the internal turmoil by reflexively siding with staff uprisings and encouraging endless concessions, said multiple executive directors who rely on foundation support. "It happens every time," said one. "They're afraid of their own staffs."
Organizations that start out by making significant concessions to staff often get run over in short order, said multiple organization heads who watched the process unfold. "You see it on the micro scale too," said one former executive director who plans to hunker down in the world of consulting for the next several years, "like when there's an individual manager who gives up her or his power and just goes belly up and says, 'Oh, yes, I have to apologize for thousands of years of oppression and I will never be able to make it up to you, but I will try.' People will just roll all over them."
THE PENDULUM MAY be swinging back. "I have been a part of a bunch of conversations among progressives who have documented the pain that all the progressive groups are under. And there has been some organizing to push back against that," said one former group leader, saying that a letter — akin to the "Harper's letter" — was being drafted and organized, "documenting how people are using race or gender, or some combination of issues, as weapons and using it to distract from the mission of many organizations or to fight internal battles, the kind of stuff that you've seen, while legitimizing the work that needs to be done in different institutions and across society on race and gender."
The pushback against callout culture, which might be surprising on a surface level, is bubbling up in Black movement spaces. "In the movement for Black lives, there is a lot of the top leaders saying, 'This is out of control. No one can be a leader in this culture. It's not sustainable. We're constantly being called out from the bottom,'" said one white movement leader who works closely with Black Lives Matter leaders. "Nowadays, there's an open conversation — not open, there is a large conversation — about the problems of this, and it's being led by people within the movement for Black lives," he said. "We didn't have that three years ago, and if we did, they were a minority and were totally isolated. Now it's so bad that there's now a growing backlash within our own movements."
Patrisse Khan-Cullors, a founder of the Black Lives Matter movement, called the phenomenon out in the book "How We Fight White Supremacy," writing, "People don't understand that organizing isn't going online and cussing people out or going to a protest and calling something out."
adrienne maree brown, an author and the former executive director of the radical direct action-oriented group the Ruckus Society, penned the widely read essay "unthinkable thoughts: call out culture in the age of covid-19" in July 2020. She raised the provocative question of whether collectively we as a people still have a will to fight, or even to live. Indeed, oftentimes, according to multiple group leaders, when they have warned staff that the endless turmoil is destroying their organization, the argument doesn't land. "They don't think what we've been doing for decades has worked," said one. "Wanting to burn it down is not irrational." Brown's essay is a plea to live again, to care again about the movement as a whole. Capitalization and bold in the original:
"the kind of callouts we are currently engaging in do not necessarily think about movements' needs as a whole. movements need to grow and deepen, we need to 'transform ourselves to transform the world'*, to 'be transformed in the service of the work'**. movements need to become the practice ground for what we are healing towards, co-creating. movements are responsible for embodying what we are inviting our people into. we need the people within our movements, all socialized into and by unjust systems, to be on liberation paths. not already free, but practicing freedom every day. not already beyond harm, but accountable for doing our individual and internal work to end harm, which includes actively working to gain awareness of the ways we can and have harmed each other, and ending those cycles in ourselves and our communities.
knee jerk call outs say: those who cause harm cannot change. they must be eradicated. the bad things in the world cannot change, we must disappear the bad until there is only good left.
but one layer under that, what i hear is:
we cannot change.
we do not believe we can create compelling pathways from being harm doers to being healed, to growing.
we do not believe we can hold the complexity of a gray situation.
we do not believe in our own complexity.
we can only handle binary thinking: good/bad, innocent/guilty, angel/abuser, black/white, etc.
it is a different kind of suicide, to attack one part of ourselves at a time. cancer does this, i have seen it – oh it's in the throat, now it's in the lungs, now it's in the bones. when we engage in knee jerk call outs and instant consequences with no process, we become a cancer unto ourselves, unto movements and communities. we become the toxicity we long to heal. we become a tool of harm when we are trying to be, and i think meant to be, a balm.
we must learn to do this before there is no one left to call out, or call we, or call us."
Ross, in an essay for the New York Times, ends with a call for grace, pointing to the suppressed nature of the conversation. "I say to people today, as a survivor of COINTELPRO," she told me, referring to the FBI scheme to infiltrate and disrupt leftist movements by sowing internal dissension, "if you're more wedded to destabilizing an organization than unifying it, part of me is gonna think you're naïve, and the other part of me is gonna think you're a plant. And neither one of those is going to look good on you."
In early June 2021, at the height of the battle over the climate provisions in Build Back Better, Fox News went for one such jiujitsu move, running a story headlined "Left-wing climate group Sunrise Movement torn by internal division."
"The creative director at the left-wing Sunrise Movement claimed Tuesday that he was fired after accusing leadership of ignoring Black members' demands, generating internal conflict within the group dedicated to youth activism against climate change.
Alex O'Keefe said he was terminated after sending a letter with demands from the "Sunrise Black Caucus" calling on Sunrise Movement to "publicly reckon with the movement-wide crisis we are in [and] dismantle our white, owning-class culture.""
Sunrise has had its share of internal crises, but this one didn't pan out the way Fox News had hoped. Varshini Prakash, the group's co-founder, quickly responded to O'Keefe on Twitter:
"Alex, I love you and you've done incredible work for our movement, but this isn't what happened.
You haven't shown up for work in months. Multiple friends and colleagues reached out repeatedly to figure out when you were coming back, and you didn't engage.
In a movement powered by so many volunteers, we take really seriously the responsibility of being a paid staff member.
I'm not going to say anything else publicly, but I'm always here if you decide you want to talk."
Key to the organization's ability to move forward, though, was what happened next. The organization's Black staff unanimously agreed to put out a public statement squashing the situation.
Callouts have always been and will always be a part of any healthy culture. It's how the community responds to the callout that answers the question of whether it can continue to be a community. If every callout leads a mob to shoot first and ask questions later, we get what we have today. If the callout is examined soberly and judiciously, only those with merit get a hearing.
"When people do this callout stuff, one of the regulatory forces is people around them that they care about saying, 'Dude, don't blow this shit up.' They can't get that from the front of the room, they can't get that from the authority in the room. They have to get it through the people that they care about," said a leading organizer. "The best thing is just saying well, you need to be an organization, and organizations naturally have rank and authority that is respected. It has to function. So you're leaning on the regulatory forces that are already inherent in community and in organization to limit the opportunity of people to act that stuff out in certain environments."
Priming those regulatory forces requires confident management, backed up by supportive funders, aligned with at least a faction of the staff. "Clarity and strength on both sides seems to work the best. So clarity and strength in saying, yeah, this institution or this movement, or across society, we have work to be done on racial justice, gender justice, economic justice, climate, and so on, and to try to not throw platitudes at that, but to be as specific and insightful as possible," one former executive director said. "And then to say also: Here's the mission of our organization, here's what we're doing at our institution, company, university, whatever, here's what we're focused on, and this — calling folks on whatever bullshit might be happening — is not what we're doing. To be really clear about the work that needs to be done or the behaviors that are acceptable and not."
WHEN PRESSED, even those who were most optimistic about a potential resolution of the crisis acknowledged that the pushback is at best in its embryonic phase. The pendulum is still carrying a wrecking ball through the headquarters of Guttmacher. The post-Floyd probe was the second such investigation in recent years. In 2017, Guttmacher surveyed its state affiliates and found dissatisfaction with the nature of its legislative coalition, with particular complaints directed at its alliance with the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. In the wake of the deadly white nationalist march in Charlottesville, which the ACLU had defended ahead of time in court, progressive staff wanted distance from the organization, while Planned Parenthood was seen as a stand-in for what Prism derided as "white feminism."
"There were questions about why the group was so abortion-focused and why reproductive justice organizations weren't at the table," one staffer recounted to Prism. "We were looking at abortion as a single issue and without making space for the handful of women of color in the room, let alone reproductive justice organizations."
The resulting report, delivered in 2019, was based in part on extensive interviews with staff and managers, including a survey of 107 staffers, and found a "white dominant culture" that the organization pledged to diversify.
The notion that Guttmacher is too abortion-focused, and ought to be more inclusive of the reproductive justice movement, risks "mission drift," Ross told The Intercept. "What are they talking about?"
"I would say that Guttmacher is a data collector, a research organization. They play that role very well, in my opinion. I'm not quite sure how Guttmacher could be more reproductive justice-focused," she said. "Guttmacher's great in the lane that it's in."
Different organizations, and different people, play different roles in the movement, she said, and people should be OK with that. "Guttmacher is good at detailing the biological factors around reproductive oppression," Ross said. "I would not want Guttmacher to lose its ability to give me the researchable, quotable data that I need to do my activist work. So I don't necessarily need them trying to redirect themselves into meeting whatever somebody else's definition of reproductive justice is."
On the morning of May 2, 2022, employees of Guttmacher announced on social media — Twitter, specifically — the result of an effort that had stretched back months: They had sent a letter to management urging voluntary recognition of a new union.
That very night, a story in Politico rocked the abortion rights world by revealing that the Supreme Court had decided to overturn Roe v. Wade, publishing a devastating draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by four others. It was the moment the reproductive justice movement had been anticipating for years, and protesters immediately flooded the steps of the Supreme Court.
The next morning, the staff, however, was back at work on its union drive, with its first post thanking the public for its support of the effort: "Seeing your messages, likes, follows, and retweets reaffirms our determination as we wait to hear from Guttmacher leadership."
Reading the room, a follow-up post added that they were "still reeling from last night's leaked draft of the #SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe," expressing "solidarity with abortion workers."
Throughout May, Guttmacher's staff regularly updated the public on its battle with management over voluntary recognition. In mid-May, workers at the Groundswell Fund, one of the largest funders of reproductive justice organizations, announced that their five-month struggle with management over unionizing had resulted in voluntary recognition.
Such recognition wouldn't come for Guttmacher's staff. On June 1, the workers said they'd rejected management's offer because it demanded "months of no strike and non-disparagement clauses." Instead, they would seek an election, they announced.
"It's a symptom of poor threat assessment," said Ross. "They can't identify the main threat."
And I have certainly witnessed all this first hand online for a long time and pointed out my frustration that I constantly see people who I consider good progressive well meaning folks get destroyed by their own movement. But I am constantly assured that no it is only bad people getting their justice in the public sphere for being bad actors. But how can that possibly be true? Where is the justice in mob action? There is none and good people and organizations can and will continue to be destroyed along with the bad actors. And other bad actors will be empowered.
And the real serious destructive consequences for the people and causes that progressive people support have and will continue to be devastating.
I've posted him before but I think there's a lot to this piece. It's helped me think about what I've talked about in terms of a post-grad shibboleth angle to the language that is used that I think is unhelpful.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/06/unlearning-the-language-of-wokeness.html
There was a lot of pushback online to this piece but I think it comes to this point:
QuoteThat all being said, I want to suggest that the critique of "wokeness" may point to a real problem for socialists, feminists, and other radicals, one obscured by our disdain for its messengers and their motivations. This real problem is obscured because it overlaps, at times, with our opponents' tendentious complaints. So we dismiss it. To elucidate it further, I'm going to offer — God, forgive me — another definition of "wokeness," one which bears at least some resemblance to the way it is deployed in our jaundiced contemporary discourses.
Here it is: Wokeness refers to the invocation of unintuitive and morally burdensome political norms and ideas in a manner which suggests they are self-evident.
This idiom — or perhaps communicative register — replaces the obligation of persuading others to adopt our values with the satisfaction of signaling our allegiance and literacy to those who already agree. In some cases, this means we speak in an insular language that alienates those who haven't stewed in the same activist cultural milieu. At other times, it means we express fealty to a novel or unintuitive norm, while suggesting that anyone who doesn't already agree with it is a bad person.
It seemed to me watching the criticism that many of his critics were outragaed/took his objection to be the 'unintuitive and morally burdensome' bit - and almost by definition if you believe that many of these issues are systemic or institution then pushing back against them will be unintuitive. But I think the main bit of his argument is the second bit that people are doing it 'in a manner which suggests they are self-evident'. And in a way the criticism played out in exactly that way.
I like this phrasing a lot. It definitely feels like a lot of woke ideas are presented as self-evident in a preemptive way to suppress debate, or even just discussion of nuances. Not self-evident to everyone, mind you, just the ones who are not racist/sexist/etc. Obviously people generally don't want to announce that they're racist, so they just keep the impure thoughts to themselves and hope they go away with more education.
Yeah I can see that too @Sheilbh @DGuller.
Valmy... that was a VERY long article.
Is it saying something other than progressive organizations are busy infighting over moral purity at this critical juncture? (which I can readily believe)
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2022, 10:03:27 PMValmy... that was a VERY long article.
Is it saying something other than progressive organizations are busy infighting over moral purity at this critical juncture? (which I can readily believe)
I don't know. I only read the bolded parts.
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2022, 10:03:27 PMValmy... that was a VERY long article.
Is it saying something other than progressive organizations are busy infighting over moral purity at this critical juncture? (which I can readily believe)
The battle isn't over moral purity, it is whether the organizations should be looking to improve their internal processes before they tackle their missions. If they tackle internal processes, then the infighting begins over what the reforms should look like. It's the herding cats issue.
Quote from: grumbler on June 19, 2022, 10:22:50 PMThe battle isn't over moral purity, it is whether the organizations should be looking to improve their internal processes before they tackle their missions. If they tackle internal processes, then the infighting begins over what the reforms should look like. It's the herding cats issue.
Thanks! :cheers:
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2022, 10:02:32 PMYeah I can see that too @Sheilbh @DGuller.
I think the key point for me is it tries to offer a way forward which is important:
QuoteTo take a pervasive example, it seems contradictory to suggest that America is a deeply racist country with many unexorcised demons, which manifest intricately in individual instincts, institutional structures, and communal customs — and, at the same time, insist that new and more sophisticated anti-racist norms should be inherently legible and agreeable to anyone but a fool or a white nationalist. This doesn't mean we should be any less relentless in pursuit of instantiating more rigorous anti-racist values, but it does mean we shouldn't expect to do so simply by treating them as self-evident or haranguing those who don't already share them.
Explaining precisely why left activists have adopted these self-destructive habits is beyond the remit of this short column. But the two main culprits are the obvious ones. The first is social media, where it is infinitely easier — more satisfying and algorithmically rewarding — to imaginatively signal affiliation with those who already share your values than try to convince anyone who doesn't.
The second is the university. Conservatives resent elite universities for churning out well-credentialed radicals. And they do, to an extent. Elite college graduates with left-wing values go on to run liberal nonprofits, staff Democratic campaigns, work in media, and become middle managers in the corporate world. Right-wingers envy this privilege, imagining that an indoctrinated managerial elite has taken control of the country's commanding heights. But they overstate the case. The class interests of the Ivy-educated tend to reassert themselves when they accumulate power. And when college-educated radicals speak for the left, they tend to speak in the language of "wokeness" — precisely as I have defined it — with distorting and destructive effects.
This is due, in part, to the peculiar history of 20th-century campus radicalism. The victories of student activists in the 1970s onward — in creating departments and new curricula through which radical thought could be studied and taught — were pyrrhic. Conceived as beachheads in a broader war against capitalist society, radical departments became sepulchers for radical thought: places where wild ideas could be quarantined from the challenge of convincing anyone outside to believe them.
Absent an incentive to make their ideas legible beyond their clerisy, radical academics reveled in inscrutability and novelty. Meanwhile, the campuses ceased to be sites of a universal moral struggle; the student was no longer seen as a font of wisdom about the problems in society, a protagonist in the moral struggle of the age. Instead she became a figure of myopic, unrealistic, and ungrounded discontent, with no skin in the game of the society she hoped to reshape.
Of course, many good ideas, theories of change, and histories of oppression and struggle have been generated on campuses. The wider dissemination of such stories has been a salutary hallmark of our era. I, myself, am a beneficiary of a radical education. But I have had to unlearn many of the ways of speaking I cultivated as a student radical in order to be more convincing and compelling off campus. The obligation to speak to non-radicals, the unconverted, is the obligation of all radicals, and it's a skill that is not only undervalued but perhaps hindered by a left-wing university education. Learning through participation in collective struggle how the language of socialism, feminism, and racial justice sound, how to speak them legibly to unlike audiences, and how others express their experiences of exploitation, oppression, and exclusion — that is our task. It is quite different from learning to talk about socialism in a community of graduate students and professors.
It's also why I think a shift to online activism is not good for politics because I think it does mean you are largely speaking to other people who share your frames of reference. One of the key roles political parties and actual activism - door-knocking and convincing people - have played is in forcing activists to engage with normal people (perhaps more in Europe than the US though).
I also think they probably played a role in providing a place where, as well as activists having to learn how to persuade and convicnce, it was a place where normal citizens could raise their concerns to 'elites' and become politicised themselves. I think as that has move online we've lost both - so activists are spending more time talking to themselves and citizens are becoming more disempowered and disconnected from politics (which is going to produce figures like Trump).
Citizens who feel disempowered will inherently vote for poor governance?
I wouldn't quite put it like that - but I think if many people start to feel disempowered then you'll get lower turnout but also more support for candidates who pitch themselves as outside 'politics as usual' (like businessmen, generals etc), candidates who don't rely on traditional party structures or institutions but a direct relationship with their support and, I think, more salvation style candidates ('I alone can fix it'). I think Trump is absolutely that type of candidate.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 20, 2022, 08:17:47 AMI wouldn't quite put it like that - but I think if many people start to feel disempowered then you'll get lower turnout but also more support for candidates who pitch themselves as outside 'politics as usual' (like businessmen, generals etc), candidates who don't rely on traditional party structures or institutions but a direct relationship with their support and, I think, more salvation style candidates ('I alone can fix it'). I think Trump is absolutely that type of candidate.
Not sure how that explains continued reverence for Trump. He accomplished little but attachment remains.
Quote from: garbon on June 20, 2022, 08:20:09 AMNot sure how that explains continued reverence for Trump. He accomplished little but attachment remains.
It doesn't and he's not an outsider now. But I just mean it's an environment where candidates like Trump seem more likely to succeed.
Although I think the thing about a direct personal relation with supporters is possibly key. It's not just Trump because I've felt the same with Corbyn supporters in the UK (and there may be other examples too) but it feels like a lot of his supporters are fans (or stans). It seems closer to internet sports and celebrity culture than traditional politics where that candidate has a meaning to you as a person that is almost detached from their politics or their ability to deliver on them. Similarly attacking that politician is felt more personally by their fans than attacking a traditional politician or party is felt by their supporters.
And there's something slightly un-democratic about that because politics is ultimately about persuasion and argument and sometimes your side loses. While I think the fan style people aren't interested in that, they're not about persuasion - the rest of us just don't 'get it'.