150 writers, scholars sign letter to cancel cancel culture
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,412
Location: Long Island, New York
07 Jul 2020, 9:02 pm
J.K. Rowling, Noam Chomsky among dozens to call for end to ‘cancel culture
Quote:
More than 100 writers and scholars — including Noam Chomsky, J.K. Rowling and Malcolm Gladwell — have signed a public letter decrying cancel culture and the rising “intolerance of opposing views.”
Published in Harper’s Magazine on Tuesday, the letter argued that the recent “needed reckoning” on racial and social justice has also “intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments” that tend to stifle the norms of public debate and tolerating differences.
“The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted,” the letter states.
It warns that censorship, while something “we have come to expect this on the radical right,” is also spreading more widely on the left through “an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.”
“The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.”
The letter doesn’t cite specific examples but notes that “institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms.”
“Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class…,” it reads.
“This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time,” the letter adds. “The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation.”
Some of the 150 notable figures who signed on include New York Times op-ed contributors David Brooks and Bari Weiss, Vox co-founder Matthew Yglesias and novelists Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood.
The letter sparked backlash on social media from pundits and journalists on both sides of the aisle, with some saying it was whiny or self-pitying, pointing out that many of those who signed it have access to large platforms.
Others called the letter hypocritical, noting that some of the signees took no issue when “cancel culture” came for conservatives.
Published in Harper’s Magazine on Tuesday, the letter argued that the recent “needed reckoning” on racial and social justice has also “intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments” that tend to stifle the norms of public debate and tolerating differences.
“The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted,” the letter states.
It warns that censorship, while something “we have come to expect this on the radical right,” is also spreading more widely on the left through “an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.”
“The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.”
The letter doesn’t cite specific examples but notes that “institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms.”
“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…,” it reads.
“This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time,” the letter adds. “The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation.”
Some of the 150 notable figures who signed on include New York Times op-ed contributors David Brooks and Bari Weiss, Vox co-founder Matthew Yglesias and novelists Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood.
The letter sparked backlash on social media from pundits and journalists on both sides of the aisle, with some saying it was whiny or self-pitying, pointing out that many of those who signed it have access to large platforms.
Others called the letter hypocritical, noting that some of the signees took no issue when “cancel culture” came for conservatives.
While the signers might not all have pure motive and are hypocrites those of us opposed to cancel culture need to accept help wherever we can get it.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
08 Jul 2020, 12:32 am
The cynic in me wonders how many of these people were supporters of "cancel culture" up until the point they remembered something in their own (or a friend's) past that has the potential to lead to them becoming a future target...
The optomist in me is hoping that people have finally realised that "cancel culture" is actually more likely to cause the spread of the problematic beliefs which it claims to be trying to stop, through forcing them into hiding and potentially reinforcing the person's belief through making them feel a victim of "the mob", rather than bringing the belief out into the light of "reason" where it can be publicly refuted\discredited - attack the ideas, not the person.
After all, if a person is afraid of being personally attacked for a belief (rather than the belief itself being attacked), they will "hide" it from others who they do not know - And you end up with "unpredictable" things like the 2016 election results.
And again, it also removes the intrest\desire in anyone wishing to express remorse\regret for having said\done something in the past and trying to make ammends, as doing so leads to more extreme "punishment" than just staying quiet about it.
Bradleigh
Veteran
Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia
08 Jul 2020, 12:59 am
I am not sure what they are hoping to receive. Does someone like Rowling want to not face criticism for her public beliefs? Sure, some reactions can be extreme and or their beliefs from comments can be misinterpreted, but some figures can really do something bad that can warrant some backlash to match the influence they have that can do harm to people.
There is some responsibility needed.
_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall
08 Jul 2020, 2:42 am
Bradleigh wrote:
I am not sure what they are hoping to receive. Does someone like Rowling want to not face criticism for her public beliefs? Sure, some reactions can be extreme and or their beliefs from comments can be misinterpreted, but some figures can really do something bad that can warrant some backlash to match the influence they have that can do harm to people.
There is some responsibility needed.
There is some responsibility needed.
Maybe she has realised that the easily offended, with a "victim complex" are the most vocal, and do not necessarily represent society as a whole?
Maybe she realises that those "cancelling" others for their beliefs show a closed mind that is unwilling to allow views outside their own to be "public" (in case their views prove wrong, potentially).
Maybe she realizes that the minorities pushing for the "cancellation" are risking a major backlash should the majority rise up and decide that the "minority" need cancelling?
It could be many things...
It is sad that society has regressed from one where different opinions could be aired and debated in public, allowing "bad" ideas to be shown for how/why they are bad, into one where "special interest groups" work to prevent a view which challenges their group from being aired, leading to them spreading in the dark with nothing presented to counter them.
While I may disagree with people, I'm not going to try and silence them...I prefer to respect that people are different, and as such understand things differently, and the only way to change a person's opinion is to provide alternative views in a civilised discussion...And that maybe find some of my beliefs\understandings are wrong, and so change them in turn.
The intellectually challenged, who try to shut down differing views (such as through "cancelling" others) simply demonstrate that they are incapable of defending their belief except through "force", indicating that it is a weak argument, and potentially unworthy of respect - I had enough bullying in my past and have only contempt for those who try doing it to me now, or those in support of it happening to others.
Bradleigh
Veteran
Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia
08 Jul 2020, 3:13 am
Brictoria wrote:
Maybe she realizes that the minorities pushing for the "cancellation" are risking a major backlash should the majority rise up and decide that the "minority" need cancelling?
Rowling is using her platform to tell people that transgender hormone therapy is being used as a new form of conversion therapy and a whole bunch of other transphobic things like defending the harassment of transgender people and so on. She has as also acted like there are some pandemic of autistic children are being pressured into hormone therapy, implying that the autistic person can't make those decisions because they are being tricked.
Rowling was loved by many but her recent acts that have caused her "canceling" are from the fact she has hurt a lot of them and hurt more people by pushing trans exclusionary language that could affect minds. Her case is not about being allowed to have her own opinions, it is about measurable harm that she has tried to use past abuse to explain why she stands by her public opinions, and people have the right to band against her platform if she is using it so irresponsibly.
No virtue signalling around everyone allowed to have an opinion when spreading it does harm. As it stands a whole bunch of people have disavowed her in regards to her opinion of trans issues, such as the three main stars of the Harry Potter movies and prominent fan sites won't link to her personal page, try to use her name as much as possible such as things outside of the franchise.
_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall
08 Jul 2020, 3:30 am
Bradleigh wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Maybe she realizes that the minorities pushing for the "cancellation" are risking a major backlash should the majority rise up and decide that the "minority" need cancelling?
Rowling is using her platform to tell people that transgender hormone therapy is being used as a new form of conversion therapy and a whole bunch of other transphobic things like defending the harassment of transgender people and so on. She has as also acted like there are some pandemic of autistic children are being pressured into hormone therapy, implying that the autistic person can't make those decisions because they are being tricked.
Rowling was loved by many but her recent acts that have caused her "canceling" are from the fact she has hurt a lot of them and hurt more people by pushing trans exclusionary language that could affect minds. Her case is not about being allowed to have her own opinions, it is about measurable harm that she has tried to use past abuse to explain why she stands by her public opinions, and people have the right to band against her platform if she is using it so irresponsibly.
No virtue signalling around everyone allowed to have an opinion when spreading it does harm. As it stands a whole bunch of people have disavowed her in regards to her opinion of trans issues, such as the three main stars of the Harry Potter movies and prominent fan sites won't link to her personal page, try to use her name as much as possible such as things outside of the franchise.
So, might I ask what facts\evidence you can provide to refute her claim, other than a subjective opinion that what she said causes "harm"? Or are facts irrelevent over "feelings"?
On a related note: I am sure there are many devout Christians who may see those pushing transgender therapies (or beliefs, for that matter) as causing "harm" to their children: Should those pushing this therapy (or beliefs) also be cancelled, or is it only the "side" that matters to you?
Bradleigh
Veteran
Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia
08 Jul 2020, 3:56 am
Brictoria wrote:
So, might I ask what facts\evidence you can provide to refute her claim, other than a subjective opinion that what she said causes "harm"? Or are facts irrelevent over "feelings"?
On a related note: I am sure there are many devout Christians who may see those pushing transgender therapies (or beliefs, for that matter) as causing "harm" to their children: Should those pushing this therapy (or beliefs) also be cancelled, or is it only the "side" that matters to you?
https://www.washington.edu/news/2016/02 ... al-health/
There is a study somewhere that shows that as acceptance of transgender individuals go up it greatly lowers things like depression and attempts of suicide, the stat people have otherwise used to say that they are just mentally ill. So as someone increases discrimination, such as megaphoning anti-trans messages like Rowling is, the more harm she is causing to the mental health of people.
On specifics is that Rowling seems especially against interventions in childhood, which what I linked above is in reference to, disregarding the uses of puberty blockers in favour of a journey of a much older transgender person that had to go through a lot of hoops, if her message got enough traction it could cause a lot of mental harm that they would not have otherwise via early intervention.
Science is on the side of this issue, it doesn't matter if a bunch of devout Christians have anti-trans points of view, their faith is not a fair comparison for movements fighting against their which are based on science and lived experiences. I know that cancel culture can go to far with the likes of wokescolds who read into the opinions of others that do not exist, but Rowling has been incredibly clear on her awful opinions she has no intention becoming better informed in.
_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall
08 Jul 2020, 4:44 am
Bradleigh wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
So, might I ask what facts\evidence you can provide to refute her claim, other than a subjective opinion that what she said causes "harm"? Or are facts irrelevent over "feelings"?
On a related note: I am sure there are many devout Christians who may see those pushing transgender therapies (or beliefs, for that matter) as causing "harm" to their children: Should those pushing this therapy (or beliefs) also be cancelled, or is it only the "side" that matters to you?
https://www.washington.edu/news/2016/02 ... al-health/
There is a study somewhere that shows that as acceptance of transgender individuals go up it greatly lowers things like depression and attempts of suicide, the stat people have otherwise used to say that they are just mentally ill. So as someone increases discrimination, such as megaphoning anti-trans messages like Rowling is, the more harm she is causing to the mental health of people.
On specifics is that Rowling seems especially against interventions in childhood, which what I linked above is in reference to, disregarding the uses of puberty blockers in favour of a journey of a much older transgender person that had to go through a lot of hoops, if her message got enough traction it could cause a lot of mental harm that they would not have otherwise via early intervention.
Science is on the side of this issue, it doesn't matter if a bunch of devout Christians have anti-trans points of view, their faith is not a fair comparison for movements fighting against their which are based on science and lived experiences. I know that cancel culture can go to far with the likes of wokescolds who read into the opinions of others that do not exist, but Rowling has been incredibly clear on her awful opinions she has no intention becoming better informed in.
So, looking at this, your reason for why she needs "cancelling" is because she is concerned about children being pressured into making a decision regarding hormone therapy and how this (along with societies traditional "expectations") will lead to a form of "conversion therapy", along with (potentially) the fact that children are not (in many other areas which can have lifelong implications) considered psychologically (or physiologically) prepared\able to make such important choices (with a term for this sort of coercion - "grooming"), whereas you disagree...But rather than debate this would prefer no-one said anything except that which matches what you personally want said?
And I'm sure the devout Christians would be happpy that you so readily discount their beliefs over your own...They may (potentially) see what you advocate for as a form of child abuse, particularly in cases when a "therapist"\other authority figure could be seen in any way as "nudging"\leading children towards this (for example, bring up the topic of "transgender", or using terms other than male/female, he/she, etc.), rather than the children having to broach the subject unprompted. Pushing\nudging\leading a child down a path such as this, for any reason, has the potential to cause more mental health issues or damage to the child than leaving the decision until they reach adulthood and are considered able to make a "fully informed" choice.
As an aside: The problem isn't that "cancel culture" can go too far: It is that "cancel culture" even exists in the first place, and that there are so many people who lack the intellectual capacity to understand this (although I'm sure that should it be them, or their "cause", under threat they would rapidly change their tune).
Bradleigh
Veteran
Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia
08 Jul 2020, 5:16 am
Brictoria wrote:
So, looking at this, your reason for why she needs "cancelling" is because she is concerned about children being pressured into making a decision regarding hormone therapy and how this (along with societies traditional "expectations") will lead to a form of "conversion therapy", along with (potentially) the fact that children are not (in many other areas which can have lifelong implications) considered psychologically (or physiologically) prepared\able to make such important choices (with a term for this sort of coercion - "grooming"), whereas you disagree...But rather than debate this would prefer no-one said anything except that which matches what you personally want said?
And I'm sure the devout Christians would be happpy that you so readily discount their beliefs over your own...They may (potentially) see what you advocate for as a form of child abuse, particularly in cases when a "therapist"\other authority figure could be seen in any way as "nudging"\leading children towards this (for example, bring up the topic of "transgender", or using terms other than male/female, he/she, etc.), rather than the children having to broach the subject unprompted. Pushing\nudging\leading a child down a path such as this, for any reason, has the potential to cause more mental health issues or damage to the child than leaving the decision until they reach adulthood and are considered able to make a "fully informed" choice.
And I'm sure the devout Christians would be happpy that you so readily discount their beliefs over your own...They may (potentially) see what you advocate for as a form of child abuse, particularly in cases when a "therapist"\other authority figure could be seen in any way as "nudging"\leading children towards this (for example, bring up the topic of "transgender", or using terms other than male/female, he/she, etc.), rather than the children having to broach the subject unprompted. Pushing\nudging\leading a child down a path such as this, for any reason, has the potential to cause more mental health issues or damage to the child than leaving the decision until they reach adulthood and are considered able to make a "fully informed" choice.
The difference is that Rowling is wrong, and devout Christians are the type that long did things like conversion therapy. Puberty blockers are for the point that children can take them so that they can wait until they are mentally able to figure out if they would like to go through with transitioning, deciding which puberty they would like, there is no evidence of puberty blockers causing long term effects that are not reversible by going through puberty. Anyone who is treating puberty blockers as the first step that it is already decided that they will transition is completely wrong, and causing harm by preventing them from being used to help the lives of children into the future.
The debate already been happening, but nosey people that find transgender people uncomfortable complaining that no one is taking their opinions, like people who take their morals from an ancient book have some special insight. Now, I am not having this discussion with you, because the side that Rowling is on is the wrong side. The anti-science side. The bigoted side. The anti-freedom side.
Brictoria wrote:
As an aside: The problem isn't that "cancel culture" can go too far: It is that "cancel culture" even exists in the first place, and that there are so many people who lack the intellectual capacity to understand this (although I'm sure that should it be them, or their "cause", under threat they would rapidly change their tune).
What do you think "cancel culture" is?
_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall
08 Jul 2020, 5:38 am
Bradleigh wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
So, looking at this, your reason for why she needs "cancelling" is because she is concerned about children being pressured into making a decision regarding hormone therapy and how this (along with societies traditional "expectations") will lead to a form of "conversion therapy", along with (potentially) the fact that children are not (in many other areas which can have lifelong implications) considered psychologically (or physiologically) prepared\able to make such important choices (with a term for this sort of coercion - "grooming"), whereas you disagree...But rather than debate this would prefer no-one said anything except that which matches what you personally want said?
And I'm sure the devout Christians would be happpy that you so readily discount their beliefs over your own...They may (potentially) see what you advocate for as a form of child abuse, particularly in cases when a "therapist"\other authority figure could be seen in any way as "nudging"\leading children towards this (for example, bring up the topic of "transgender", or using terms other than male/female, he/she, etc.), rather than the children having to broach the subject unprompted. Pushing\nudging\leading a child down a path such as this, for any reason, has the potential to cause more mental health issues or damage to the child than leaving the decision until they reach adulthood and are considered able to make a "fully informed" choice.
And I'm sure the devout Christians would be happpy that you so readily discount their beliefs over your own...They may (potentially) see what you advocate for as a form of child abuse, particularly in cases when a "therapist"\other authority figure could be seen in any way as "nudging"\leading children towards this (for example, bring up the topic of "transgender", or using terms other than male/female, he/she, etc.), rather than the children having to broach the subject unprompted. Pushing\nudging\leading a child down a path such as this, for any reason, has the potential to cause more mental health issues or damage to the child than leaving the decision until they reach adulthood and are considered able to make a "fully informed" choice.
The difference is that Rowling is wrong, and devout Christians are the type that long did things like conversion therapy. Puberty blockers are for the point that children can take them so that they can wait until they are mentally able to figure out if they would like to go through with transitioning, deciding which puberty they would like, there is no evidence of puberty blockers causing long term effects that are not reversible by going through puberty. Anyone who is treating puberty blockers as the first step that it is already decided that they will transition is completely wrong, and causing harm by preventing them from being used to help the lives of children into the future.
The debate already been happening, but nosey people that find transgender people uncomfortable complaining that no one is taking their opinions, like people who take their morals from an ancient book have some special insight. Now, I am not having this discussion with you, because the side that Rowling is on is the wrong side. The anti-science side. The bigoted side. The anti-freedom side.
So: being on the "science" side: You must obviously have details regarding the long term studies of puberty blockers (both their use, and effects they may have multiple decades after they are stopped), along with "blind" studies regarding their effects over this same timeframe.
Then there is the issue with having to decide (still as a child) which "way" to go, otherwise facing the potential torment from other children who have entered\passed through puberty while they were undecided.
It seems strange that those claiming to be on the "freedom" side are perfectly happy to deny others the freedom to make their own opinions (or have their own beliefs) regarding all this, and try to shut down any discussion, in a most anti-freedom, bigoted manner, as well as "cancelling" those who question their beliefs.
Bradleigh wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
As an aside: The problem isn't that "cancel culture" can go too far: It is that "cancel culture" even exists in the first place, and that there are so many people who lack the intellectual capacity to understand this (although I'm sure that should it be them, or their "cause", under threat they would rapidly change their tune).
What do you think "cancel culture" is?
The practice of a bigoted minority to shout down people who's views or actions (present or past) do not coincide with those of this bigotted minority, and to try to bully those associated with the "heretic" into cutting ties (friendship\employment\business) with them.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,412
Location: Long Island, New York
08 Jul 2020, 6:29 am
Reminder J.K. Rowling is only one of the 150 people who signed the letter.
Autistic people should dispise cancel culture because
1. Our literalness is often at odds with "politically correct" language and is often misperceived
2. Our thought process is of different than NT's which puts us at risk of coming to conclusions deemed offensive by the purity police.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
08 Jul 2020, 7:56 am
J.K. Rowling is a delightful one cause she was picking on Trump for being "unenlightened".
Now she is the "unenlightened" one.
_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.
Be the hero of your life.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Woman uses corpse to try and sign bank loan |
Today, 9:27 am |
| dishonest capitalist culture is inherently abelist |
06 Mar 2024, 6:08 am |
