I spent five years in a Catholic Monastery forty years ago, although I have never been religious for a single day. — Joe Mello

Thinking laterally, you were the accountant or cook?

Welcome.

How does a person "stop being a big baby" and how does a person "grow the ability to listen to opposing views without fear that we'll slide into a holocaust if you let other people have their say"?

Have you worked out an actual didactic program for this? Can you present it here? — baker

I think he's arguing for a kind of immersion therapy. A little QAnon here, a little Mein Kampf there, until you become desensitized and nonreactive.

Can't help thinking there's something a little Marcusean here (alluded to earlier) about the reality of worker's demands being all too uncouth for a certain class of left-wing pundit.

Is rescuing a tormented trans art student safer than empowering a grubby factory trade union member?

Is installing a (privileged) black female supreme court judge safer than giving black female banana growers a fair price for their product?

Is getting equal pay (by way of increase, of course!) for female entertainers less dangerous than just taxing the fuck out of them to pay for such luxuries as rice and water for those less charming in an evening dress?

Are the beneficiaries of old-school socialism just too frightening for the newly elevated chattering classes, they need someone tamer, more like them, to help. Someone they are less complicit themselves in the oppression of. — Isaac

Nicely polarizing. I read a similar characterization on Breitbart News this morning.

I've no sympathy at all for those who threaten her, but I've no sympathy for her either, she's a billionaire, she'll manage. — Isaac

She lost her billionaire status when she donated 16% of her net worth or $160 million. In addition to the charitable trust called Volant, she’s the founder of Lumos, an organization that works to “end the systematic institutionalization of children across Europe and help them find safer, more caring places to live.” Not too afraid of important problems, it seems.

Almost finished with Material Girls, incidentally. Well reasoned, as you might expect, and a good book for learning more about the trans controversy.

If this is true, then perhaps many transsexuals can be seen as gay men and women who want their bodies to ‘match’ their brain wiring.
— Joshs

Yes, if that is the most rationally consistent way to go about it. — Garrett Travers

How is it rational see a biologically male sex and a psychologically female gender as a woman, or a biologically female sex and a psychologically male gender as a man?

You have probably seen Kinsey's and other people's stats on bisexual behavior. — Bitter Crank

Just reviewed some of the findings on the site, interesting. Strangely, I noticed that one of the most commonly searched topics on the site is penis size. Not to boast but I'm happy to report that I'm above average. :party:

It's like if you have a friend who goes ballistic every time you put a cup down without a coaster, you just become immune to it; you're going to take little notice next time he explodes even if, this time, its over something really important. — Isaac

People take little notice of the important things that you mention regardless of "First-world neuroses", and if we were actually the selfless and rational species that you seem to suggest we should be then those problems wouldn't exist in the first place. We're selfish and tribalistic.

Even though Rowling and Stock have similar views regarding trans issues, and similar problems with expressing their views, you express care for Stock but none for Rowling. Maybe that's simply because you can relate more to Stock, or you personally know her.

I believe that , as Freud said, in the most general sense we are all bisexual in that we all have the capability to learn to enjoy sexual relations with both biological males and females. — Joshs

Very true, nevertheless heterosexuals who can enjoy sexual relations with both sexes, perhaps even in a ‘twinning dance’, are still sexuality attracted to the opposite sex, at least primarily. I wonder if the same is true for homosexuals.

It’s interesting and perhaps revealing that your description of gender mentions only who one is sexually attracted to, and nothing about what I would consider to be a more central aspect of gender for many in the gay community , which has to do with a global perceptual-affective style, of which sexual attraction is merely one small aspect. For those who dont grasp this , it is incoherent to talk about gayness outside of sexual attraction, and I think that is part of the problem. — Joshs

You seem to be saying that ignorance of gender identity theory is part of the problem and Bitter Crank seems to be saying that “delusion” is problematic, or rather that sex/gender cannot be changed. It’s not clear if BC believes sex and gender can be more or less independent of each other.

Personally, I have no problem with separating biological sex and gender identity or ‘style’. It makes me wonder where sexual attraction fits best though. Is sexual attraction more biological sex or more a part of psychological gender? The fact that some transsexuals are not gay seems to indicate that it’s more biological sex, and also that many gay people’s gender matches their biological sex.

JK Rowling...well, I'd probably try to avoid being seated next to her at a dinner party....but that's about it. — Isaac

Because you believe she’s transphobic or don’t want to be associated with someone who’s been accused of transphobia? Not sure which is worse. Or perhaps you are inclined to express something like tribal solidarity?

That’s an excellent example. Goodonya, mate. I just bought Material Girls and may have more to say on the subject after reading it.

What 'upset me' if you want to put it that way, is that you thought it reasonable, on a debating platform, to dismiss frank's contribution with a dismissive (and, it transpires, disingenuous) "hard to take seriously" rather than any kind of charitable inclusion of those concerns in the discussion. — Isaac

Frank receives more than his share of charity in many many discussions. Trust me on that. :wink:

If you seriously thought that there wasn't any evidence for the claims in the letter (an already fairly absurd position given the general academic standing in which some of the signatories are held), — Isaac

Oh to be young and innocent.

at the very least we might have expected a "...really! Are you sure those things happened", not an assumption that they probably didn't — Isaac

I searched the web for hours looking for examples that would support the claims and I could not find anything more supportive than what you found. People ‘exaggerate’ when doing so benefits them in some way, Isaac.

You asked me what was missing, Isaac, and I made a complete list. I honestly didn’t know that it would upset you so. If it makes you feel any better, it wasn’t too bad for a five minute effort.

So Frank, I can’t help wondering how committed you are to ‘growing the psychological muscles necessary for listening to a view we don't like’. Imagine, if you’re willing, that Marjorie Taylor Greene submitted an Op-Ed piece to the New York Times on weekly basis, assuming she knows how to read and write. How often do you think they should publish her esteemed options (instead of something more substantive)?

You lamented the lack of examples, examples were given. Is there something else you're missing? — Isaac

Good example that sufficiently support the claims. The examples that you so generously provided do not match the claims very well, though I think the last example is a good example of cancel culture.

The list of claims is as follows:

Editors are fired for running controversial pieces - The Tom Cotton example is an expression of cancel culture, in my opinion, just not a strong example. I think running the Op-Ed was a bad choice (was there nothing better to run that day?) and wouldn’t disagree with a reprimand. I wouldn’t ask for resignation though.

Books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity - No example of this has been provided.

Journalists are barred from writing on certain topics - No example of this has been provided.

Professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class - Regarding the New School example, as I said, I’m glad that they investigate accusations of racism.

A researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study - The David Shor saga is a good example.

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.