Neither your agreement nor your disagreement were the point. The point was entirely that you designated people's serious concerns as "hard to take seriously" on the grounds of a lack of specificity that two minutes of internet research could have settled for you. — Isaac

It was not a lack of specificity but a lack of supporting evidence, and it's still not settled for me.

A public objection is just words, and they do not necessarily lead to this or that action. — NOS4A2

It seems that you agree with the title of the topic, that cancel culture doesn't exist.

So first the letter's not to be taken seriously because there's no examples; then it's not to be taken seriously because the examples are one's where you'd agree with the cancellations... — Isaac

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

• I didn't say that I agreed with James Bennet’s resignation, assuming it was forced.
• I don't care that a publisher decided to stop printing children's books from a long-dead author.
• From what I gather, New School investigated a professor and did not 'cancel' them. I'm glad that New School investigates accusations of racism, actually.
• I agreed that the David Shor saga was a good example.

By bigoted I mean that one is intolerant of another because of his views, which do not manifest beyond the victimless expressions of thought and speech. There are actions we should not tolerate, however, and censorship is one of them. — NOS4A2

A defining feature of bigotry is that it is unreasonable. We can have well-reasoned objections to what people say and do.

There is something of a contradiction in what you're saying though. Public objection to what influential people say or do is just words, right? Yet those words lead to actions, like people getting fired from their jobs, so it seems that thought and speech do at times result in actions, and those actions have victims. I assume that you wouldn't support disallowing objections to what influential people say and do.

Good point, but that obviously is not the only motivation behind cancel culture. Isn’t it really more about something like tribal loyalty? Or maybe you mean that being loyal to a tribe is to be bigoted?

I know I would consider multiple ways of living horrible and grotesque, but morally wrong? Probably not. — Jake Hen

Horrible and grotesque is morally good? :chin:

Right?! I recall Trump announcing to a cheering audience that he would fire any athlete who knelt during the National Anthem (in protest of police brutality). How is that not “cancel culture”?

There is nothing self-regulating about this kind of ostracism and bigotry, even if they have found less violent means of doing it than in the past. Wherever heretical speech and thoughts are censored, it is nonetheless premised on the base motives found in inquisitions and witch-burning. — NOS4A2

The difference, my hyperbolic friend, is that the Salem witch trial executions, for instance, were state-sanctioned. If a private sector employer fires someone because they did something that reduced the businesses profit margin, that’s just good business practice, right?

I would greenlight it for the comics section.

Cancel culture was regnant in McCarthyism and Anti-communism, I would say. — NOS4A2

It’s funny that many of those who whine the loudest about cancel culture believe that a capitalist society should be self-regulating. Isn’t cancel culture the ideal of this philosophy? Probably only when it works in their favor, I imagine.

Not publishing a piece (of shit) in the Op-Ed section of the Times doesn’t eliminate it from public conversation, particularly if the author is high profile, like a US senator.

What do you mean by hidden? He’s a senator. Also, the direction towards militarization of law enforcement is nothing new, unfortunately.

Editors are fired for running controversial pieces

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2020/06/07/new-york-times-opinion-editor-out-after-publishing-controversial-tom-cotton-piece/ — Isaac

Giving a platform to the idea of using the military against civilians is not good, to say the least, particularly at a time when the fucking president is trying to sell the idea.

books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/07/dr-seuss-books-product-recall-cancel-culture — Isaac

I do so like Green Eggs and Ham. I would read it in a car. I would read it in a bar. I would read it here or there. I would read it anywhere.

professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/aug/15/white-professor-investigated-quoting-james-baldwin-use-of-n-word-laurie-sheck — Isaac

Investigation is not cancelation.

researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study

https://www.vox.com/2020/7/29/21340308/david-shor-omar-wasow-speech — Isaac

This one looks like a good example. Apparently fired for a tweet that any reasonable person would regard as an innocuous study.

less than five minutes on Google. — Isaac

It shows.

The following is alarming but no examples are offered and it is therefore hard to take seriously.

Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study

White people were given advantages because they were white. — Pinprick

I'm pretty sure they took advantage. It's not morally good to take advantage, is it?

It doesn't say, and I'm not sure that 'somewhat disabled' is quantifiable. But my feeling is that 'most' folks who manage to achieve a mental diagnosis of any sort are probably somewhat disabled. — unenlightened

This again:

1 in 4 people will experience a mental health problem of some kind each year in England .
1 in 6 people report experiencing a common mental health problem (like anxiety and depression) in any given week in England.

It doesn't appear to claim that these cases are clinically diagnosed. Incidentally, there was a point in my life when I think that I could have been diagnosed with anxiety disorder, and I would say that I was somewhat disabled at the time. Not disabled enough to affect my work or most other normal activities, but some situations would inexplicably induce a panic attack. Panic attacks can be more than a little disabling.

1 in 4 people will experience a mental health problem of some kind each year in England .
1 in 6 people report experiencing a common mental health problem (like anxiety and depression) in any given week in England.

To a degree that they're somewhat disabled? It doesn't seem to say.

The thing which I find puts me off this site and another one I use is that it often seems to be the most inflammatory statements which get a lot of responses. — Jack Cummins

That's the point, in many cases. It's called trolling. People always say "don't feed the troll" but I think they're often rather adorable and fun.

Florian Ruths has researched this area for 10 years, as clinical lead for mindfulness-based therapy in the South London and Maudsley NHS foundation trust. He believes it is possible to teach yourself mindfulness through apps, books or online guides. “For most people, I think if you’re not suffering from any clinical issues, or illness, or from stress to a degree that you’re somewhat disabled, it’s fine,” he says.

Seems about what one would expect.

reality is often harsh, cold, and in ever so many ways, unpleasant. — Bitter Crank

Perhaps that is an unpleasant delusion.

It seems that I have much more faith in the idea that we’re all deluded (cannot know reality) than you do.

Can any of you provide a stronger argument for how someone could be Buddhist and Christian at the same time? — tryhard

It’s possible that a person could find both significantly meaningful. The only requirement of a successful religion is that people find it meaningful. The problem with this theory is that an individual who could find both meaningful would have to be rather independent and the nature of religion is anti-independent. The very concept of a ‘heretic’ is testament to this fact. Heretics help to reaffirm the meaningfulnesses of a religious affiliation by distinguishing the other.

I believe there is an objective reality, but one important aspect of reality is that humans are delusional. My theory is that everybody is deluded to varying degrees. It is a question of "how much" and "about what". Delusions and illusions are the human stock-in-trade. — Bitter Crank

This doesn’t really make sense, does it? If we are deluded and delusion is our stock-in-trade then “objective reality” must be part of our delusion, being that delusion is all that we have to work with. We can certainly have faith in objective reality, just as anyone can have faith in their religion, or faith in the possibility of changing their sex.

I have known several transsexuals well...
...
Is transsexualism a delusion? Yes. — Bitter Crank

I've only been acquainted with a couple, who I don't really know at all. They never seemed delusional to me. I find it extremely hard to believe that a transsexual doesn't realize what they are. I would think that they would tend to be keenly aware of themselves and their sexuality, much more so than ordinary folk at least, who have less of a reason to be self-conscious. If a trans person somehow forgot their transness I imagine that other people would remind them, and perhaps not always politely.

I have the sneaking suspicion that Biden's picks will be strategically planned to primarily benefit his political career. I hope he nominates a black woman for the reasons that I've mentioned.

Men are men, women are women. East is east, west is west, and never the twain shall meet. (Kipling. Not a serious quote) — Bitter Crank

The ballad reveals its fuller meaning in subsequent lines.

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!

In the end distinctions of geography, breed, birth, or sex, do not matter at all when those with integrity meet. If you met Caitlyn Jenner would you refuse to use her preferred pronouns? It would seem rude to do otherwise.

Transsexualism and transvestitism is an elaborate sexual masquerade--and certainly not the only sexual and non-sexual masquerade which humans perform. But let's stay honest: A man wearing a dress (even if an artificial vagina has been created) is still a masquerading man. A woman wearing a beard and a suit (even if an artificial penis has been created) is still a masquerading woman. — Bitter Crank

Actually, all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female, so all men are not men but masquerading women. We've both got frick'n nipples for Christ's sake! We can even lactate.

The question for 'gay liberation' is more a matter of what gay people have given up to gain acceptance and the 'normality' of heterosexual-type family life. — Bitter Crank

What have they given up?

Assuming there's a 'superstition' that black women are low status and being low status in America is disadvantageous, lobbying in favor of someone on the basis of gender/race could be seen as moral, specifically in the moral sense of fairness.

Keep in mind that this would be an effort to counteract superstition (and its associated disadvantages) and if there's a superstition that women of color are low status, this false belief would be counteracted by them occupying high-status positions in society, such as a Supreme Court justice.

Then wouldn’t it be fair to try rectifying the situation?

Do you believe that the false beliefs and biases that we’re talking about are advantageous to some and disadvantageous to others?

Would a revival of Bushido and Stoicism teach the youth of today how to keep a stiff upper lip? — Dermot Griffin

A curious pairing. If a stiff upper lip is the goal then Bushido may be the better choice. I don’t think the world is in need of more stiff lips though. Human kind is definitely in need of greater well-being.

I’ve misinterpreted what you mean by superstition? What exactly do you mean with that term in this context if not false beliefs and biases?

A murderer has killed someone. How can others of the same taxonomy be perpetrators of murder if they did not kill anyone? A victim of murder is deceased. How can others of the same taxonomy be victims of murder if they are still alive? To confer guilt or victimhood to others beyond perpetrator and victim is a false conclusion and leads to unjust actions, in any case, but to confer them to one race or another is an absurdity. — NOS4A2

In a nutshell, the word you used to describe this is superstition. False beliefs and biases that are advantageous to some and disadvantageous to others.

Do you want to claim that superstitions don't exist? Go ahead, I won't object.

None of this distracts from the principle of fairness though. I know that you know what fairness is. I know that you have a sense of fairness. You seem to have the superstition that you don't value fairness.

The superstition as it has been used leads one to false conclusions and unjust actions, ... — NOS4A2

Yes, as you say, "I speak of race as pseudoscience and superstition. The history of how this superstition was used to malign, exclude, and murder human beings is well documented."

... such as the assumption that any member of such taxonomies are either victim or perpetrator in some all-purveying race struggle. — NOS4A2

This appears to contradict your statement that the history of how this superstition was used to malign, exclude, and murder human beings is well documented. Murder, for instance, requires a perpetrator and a victim. Are you saying that your own belief in history causes you to have false conclusions and unjust actions?

The history of how this superstition was used to malign, exclude, and murder human beings is well documented. The assumption that any member of such taxonomies are either victim or perpetrator in some all-purveying race struggle are the direct result of the same thinking, and immediately falsified upon evidence to the contrary. — NOS4A2

These two sentences seem to contradict each other. Can you rephrase?

religion/spirituality is evolutionarily advantageous. — baker

You might assume it is, in a common-sense sort of way, but it's far from a given. All other species on Earth seem to have survived this far without it. What's behind it may even prove to eventually end us.

wherever it is unethical to lobby against someone on the grounds of race, it is unethical to lobby in favor of someone on the grounds of race, and for the same reason. It seems to me that violating this principle is the problem to begin with. — NOS4A2

The primary fault with your reasoning here is that you speak as though 'race' exists in a vacuum. It is clear to everyone who takes this case seriously that race represents more than mere skin pigmentation. Generally speaking, it represents a marginalized segment of society. So you seem to be saying that you feel it is unethical to lobby for or against those in a disadvantaged position.

I also feel it is unethical to take advantage of those with a disadvantage, but I don't see how it's unethical to give advantage to those with a disadvantage. I can only assume that you do not value the principle of fairness, even though you fully understand the concept.

Trying to follow what you’re saying, I will point out that the media doesn’t report what its audience doesn’t want to hear, and that approval polls reflect public approval.

It's hard to disagree with that, when they literally published it as their intention for the world to see: https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

It simply cannot be interpreted any other way. — Garrett Travers

I don’t follow what you’re saying.

he still garnered more votes than any president in the history of all nations of the world, with the unbelievable exception of Biden, who has in his first year garnered the worst approval rating of any president in history in that same time, or very close to more than any other. — Garrett Travers

Second only to Trump for worst first year approval rating. The media and the public are responsible for that, of course, and not Trump. :smirk: