150 writers, scholars sign letter to cancel cancel culture

Post Reply New Topic

Not so much with James Damore.

I see what you mean, I guess we're all different. I don't stick my neck out much in real life political circles.

He didn't!! He was asked, for an employee diversity workshop, to give internal feedback on the training program - so he did! I guess maybe he should have thought about the fact that he was at Google and nothing's a small thing there but - that's the origin story. The problem with aspies and autistics - you ask a question it gets read literally and answered literally.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 08 Jul 2020, 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Good. Cancel culture is the worst.

"The writer of those classic children's books you like so much cheated on his terminally ill wife several times. Because of that I hate them."

"Fine, if you hate them, don't read them".

"And neither should YOU, but since you do read them I hate YOU too."

"I know what the author did was terrible, but I also don't really care."

"F*** you, b****! !"

Some of these idiots want to revoke their signatures because they don't like who they're sharing the list of signatories with.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/at-least- ... ay-from-it

WHY IS THIS A THING? If I'm in favour of something, I have my own reasons for it, I don't care how big the rogues gallery that also think the same as me is. There's some political trash in that letter, but it doesn't matter. The goal is aligned with mine, and for the right reasons, so I hope it succeeds. Left, right and centre should all be opposed to cancel culture and pro freedom of speech.

In truth, to my knowledge the long term research limited, largely because there has been such a push back to even allowing in using them, but so far there is no scientific proof of greatly harmful side effects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty_blocker
"While few studies have examined the effects of puberty blockers for gender non-conforming or transgender adolescents, the studies that have been conducted indicate that these treatments are reasonably safe, and can improve psychological well-being in these individuals.[11][12][13] In 2019, a study in the journal Pediatrics found that access to pubertal suppression during adolescence was associated with a lower odds of lifetime suicidality among transgender people.[14]
The potential risks of pubertal suppression in gender dysphoric youth treated with GnRH agonists may include adverse effects on bone mineralization.[15][16]
Research on the long term effects on brain development is limited, but a 2015 study published in Psychoneuroendocrinology observed the executive functioning in 20 transgender youth treated with puberty blockers compared to untreated youth with gender dysphoria and found that there was no difference in performance."




Well, it better to let them have the choice at more of a time they might be able to rather, the torment they receive from taking blockers could be far worse than having to go through their puberty while trying to explore their gender, and then having life long dysphoria because someone decided for them that they had to go through the wrong puberty. The harm of not using them may outweigh the harm of doing nothing. We can't use the nature fallacy.




One person's freedom ends when it comes at the expense of another. The freedom for a person to dislike transgender culture should not come at the expense of harming transgender people, of which transgender people are already at risk of.




I agree in spirit, that it can be ridiculous how people will go after those around an individual that they assume to have problematic beliefs. But I think you are running into problems in regards to Rowling in how Rowling is not being targeted by a bigoted minority, she has been acting as part of such a bigoted minority by sharing beliefs of what people call TERFs. She has been incredibly clear with her point, and a good majority are against her comments, you don't really see a lot of Harry Potter fans defending her on her opinions, with the exception of people who already have no idea what transgenderism is.

If anything, Rowling wants to cancel acceptance of defending transgender people against discrimination. This goes into one of her earlier tweets where she used #ThisIsNotADrill when defending a woman that lost a case in not getting her contract renewed after harassing a transgender person in the office and being public about her transphobia. It is really ironic that Rowling wants to stop cancel culture when she has tried to start the same thing with things she does not believe, just to be met with a larger group that does not stand for it.

What if, for example, the other people were "cancelled" for defending the idea that rape does not exist, or that pedophilia should be allowed? Would you feel uncomfortable then if those were your comrades in signing?

Also, when does something move to anti-freedom of speech when it may just be the freedom of speech of others to oppose the substance of their speech? Or are people not allowed to criticise anyone for their opinions?

https://youtu.be/4qlcXNMmlsI

And what happens if the freedom of 2 groups are at odds regarding certain issues: How do you justify the removal of one groups freedom in favor of another? And in removing this freedom, are you not incentivising them to then fight back harder to regain the lost freedom? Turning "freedom" into an adversarial pursuit will only cause further harm to both sides, whereas allowing complete freedom would lead to better understanding and acceptance of the other groups beliefs.



So, you equate a person (or groups) "dislike" of something with causing harm...Therefore, using this same logic, "The freedom for a person to dislike traditional Christian culture (including understanding of "gender") should not come at the expense of harming those with traditional beliefs\understandings, of which these people are already at risk of" (as expecting them to abide by a "social construct" which is counter to the tenets of their belief could cause psychological harm to them)?



Have you considered that maybe the "bigoted minority" may share a similar understanding of the subject with normal (non "woke") people, making the "woke" into the bigoted minority here, with Rowling thus being a part of the "majority"? Just because she is part of a minority within a minority group doesn't mean that her belief\understanding may not be held by others outside that group, increasing it's size.

Why should a person be cancelled for expressing an idea? The respectful way to counter an idea is to present a countering idea, demonstrating where the "bad" idea is incorrect and explaining how. The authoritarian\dictatrorial way is to attack the person instead, leading to them likely holding stronger to their idea and spreading it in private.



Have you considered that the aim should not be to criticise a "person" (or group) for their opinions: The aim should be to criticise the opinion itself.

Any person (or group) who has to rely on (or supports) "cancelling" a person with a differing view is just showing that their own idea is too weak to be justified in any other way, and so unlikely to be worthy of respect.

The freedom of protecting a group from harm should supersede the freedom from another group to harm them. The freedom that people should not be made slaves should overcome the people that want the freedom to have slaves. In question of turning this freedom into an adversarial experience, we can continue this example by pointing towards the American confederates, that they were not in the right and there did not need to be a fight if they did not make it one. There does not need to be an adversarial context on the not liking trans people or helping their needs if they (Rowling and TERFs) are not starting this fight by attacking trans people.




The scientific evidence says that trans people not be accepted in society and getting what they need to feel like themselves causes mental health problems like depression and suicide. Trans people don't decide that they are trans. People with traditional Christian beliefs are not like this, and frankly the victim mentality that they cannot mess up some people's lives by deciding for them is simply disgusting.




So I ask, do you think that trans people are their identified gender?

If the bigoted minority do share a similar understanding on things like validity of transgender people, in that they are not, it is because most are uneducated on the subject, that is just argumentum ad populum. Not to invoke an appeal to authority fallacy, but the majority of experts point to validity of transgenderism in affirming them.

Indeed, I agree with all of that, and that has been the response to people like Rowling, that she has been met with people with people providing her with correct information. I can provide dozens of video responses to Rowling's toxic ideas that calmly corrected where she is wrong and provided no attack on her, but she has refused all of these responses since people calmly responded to her why the people she was following were bad. Fans were super patient with Rowling up until she refused to properly educate herself and followed pretty much conspiracy theorists

It is ridiculous to expect people to stay calm when she has just continued to use her platform to spread hateful (even if she does not recognise it) beliefs that will make the lives worse by turning people more against transgender people and not providing the resources they need because a bunch of concerned mums targeted the government because they automatically bought into what a famous author said. And people have the right to no longer want to support Rowling's platform if they don't agree with what she says about trans people.

Calls against Rowling have not been sudden, and I don't think people should be sending harassing like messages to her, but it has become a point that it is well worth people to decide that they no longer want to support Rowling's platform, and asking other people connected to her platform if they agree with her opinions. And most are saying trans rights with almost no prodding. With Rowling showing no intention of changing her opinion after confronted with it, this is the only way to counter her rhetoric.

I don't think you understand how people have felt hurt by what Rowling has done?

So, you are setting one side up as the "Supreme Authority", whose ideas are infalible, and where those who do not agree with them\follow your side need to be punished. Interesting. Almost sounds like a religion\cult trying to defend itself from scrutiny.



As I understand what you are saying, the freedom for people to hold a different view to yourself with regards to transgender issues should outweigh the rights of you (or transgender groups) to force them to be slaves to your beliefs? In this, I would agree. After all, expecting (or forcing) people to "believe" something, or have certain opinions is making them slaves to those beliefs and the groups who propogate them. Freedom from slavery in this case would involve presenting them with the ideas, but allowing them to "believe" or "disbelieve" as they chose, with no "punishment" for not following a given belief\opinion.

I have not said one side is a "Supreme authority", I have said one side is backed up by evidence, the other is backed by ignorance. Nor have I said that people who do not follow those beliefs should be punished, but people have the right to counter the harmful belief of others even if it is calling for some de-platforming, this is something that has always happened such as people found problematic during the #MeToo movement.




Why are you being so intellectually dishonest? I thought that I was incredibly clear with what I said with my example that I would not have to break it down to the level needed to explain it to a child.

In the past, such as mentioned in the bible, people had the right to own slaves, that is one person owning another person. But, movements came about to say that everyone should have the right to be a free person, this thus created a bit of a problem where people thought that their rights to their property such as owning another human being were being infringed. This problem was solved by saying that the human right in having their own autonomy should be worth more than the previous rights to that property, because their rights in owning people does harm to the other.

No one is forcing anti-transgender people to have to accept the opinion that all trans people are valid as their identified gender, they are free to hold those beliefs, your complaint is worth nothing. What I was using the slave analogy is that Rowling is free to express her beliefs, she can do it all she wants, but when that right comes into conflict of doing harm to another person, the personal safety and wellbeing of another, then that is where her right ends. And Rowling's fearmongering of transgender people, movement and calling transitioning options a type of gay conversion therapy, based on her unsubstantiated claim that trans people are more accepted than gay, she has crossed the line of what many people are willing to tolerate from the harm that it causes to people.


All evidence points to affirmation of transgender people and availability of services reduces mental health problems that they experience. Until you can disprove or cast enough doubt into those studies, please shut up about Rowling being the victim.

For society to advance and avoid stagnation we need to have the freedom to express views which are counter to mainstream culture or expectations - but without creating an atmosphere of oppression.

Rowling's comments are probably a borderline case - viewed by some as seeking oppression of trans rights, and by others as opening up debate on issues deserving of recognition.

Personally, I'm somewhat in agreement with the letter in thinking that this cancel culture is becoming an issue, it seems to be developing into a kind of groupthink a bit reminiscent of the Chinese cultural revolution - in which speech against the prevailing dogma was considered abhorrent and those who dared do so (in particular the educated classes such as teachers and writers) were called out and punished, not by the authorities but by their peers.

They did not fully understand what they were signing if they cancelled themselves. One of the main purposes of an open letter is to demonstrate that an issue is so important that people who disagree are willing to put aside these differences for an issue.