“Those People We Tried to Cancel? They’re All Hanging Out Together”—https://t.co/HCRu0z92Dz
Interesting to read this in the New York Times.
I hope Quinn Norton—whom the NYT fired because she befriended a bad person—is doing okay.
Quinn isn't mentioned in this story.
Andrew "Not cool enough for an ETH scam" Glidden - @asglidden2 weeks ago
RT @meghan_daum: I have mixed feelings about this article, not least of all the assumption that there's an agreed-upon definition of "bad, conservative or offensive opinions." But @BridgetPhetasy's quote says it all: “They can’t cancel you if you don’t care."
The wokies were actually burning stacks of The Stranger? They’re only a mm short of being book burners, their transition to conservative retards is complete.
Edit: Oh and obviously these are many examples of driving left-leaning or apolitical people straight to right-wing twats like Shapiro. That’s definitely a great political strategy... Who could’ve predicted that (aside from literally anyone)? I also can’t believe even the retards writing for Quillette are surprised that cancelling brings more attention! Ask Barbara Streisand for some assistance if you don’t understand...
All the people in this story had and continue to have power. They had the power to get their voice noticed, and many of them used it to push ideas which can lead to toxic outcomes. Although I don’t fully sign on to cancel culture, this article really is just a smear of the idea. To Say that these powerful people, while still powerful, are being unjustly held to account, without any proof other than these people’s words is just bad journalism. It makes me lose faith in the paper when something so heavily slanted can go to print without real research.
I think the part of the article that upset me the most was saying that ‘presumption of innocence’ is now a conservative idea. These are people who publicly acted in bigoted ways, or platformed bigots. What presumption do we need? Just put our heads in the sand to their words? One of the main reasons for a presumption of innocence is to protect those without power. These cancelled people have power, and such a presumption is more about giving more to the already privileged.
Awkward when extreme wokeness turns into fascism. You realise that's what you are actually talking about right? Example: A huge number of US college campuses do not protect nor do they believe sexual assault victims. Does having a small number of extremely liberal college campuses that automatically believe women over men regardless of proof fix that issue? Because that's what Christina Hoff Sommers was canceled for. She was canceled for being a feminist who was not woke enough.
"When I went to law school, in the ’90s, the presumption of innocence was seen as a progressive value,” Mr. Kay said. “Because who is mostly wrongly accused of crime? Racialized minorities. Blacks, Hispanics, the poor."
“When I went to law school, in the ’90s, the presumption of innocence was seen as a progressive value,” Mr. Kay said. “Because who is mostly wrongly accused of crime? Racialized minorities. Blacks, Hispanics, the poor. More often than not, it protects marginalized communities. And now the presumption of innocence is seen as a conservative value. And that troubles me.”
Remember the 90s? Lefty comedians literally had to go to the Supreme Court to fight for their right of free speech. At one point the dirtbag left was a spearhead for the defense of speech.
It’s crazy how far we’ve fallen. Now it’s the far right on the defense. When I studied law it was always progressives who fought for speech rights. It’s fucking baffling
Right? It used to be rightoids that were insanely puritanical and wanted to censor everything. Even fucking Pokemon cards were considered haram. But we mostly just laughed at them.
Now everything's reversed and it's not so funny anymore because now the people pushing censorship are the same ones who run the media, big tech, and academia.
canceled for bad, conservative or offensive opinions.
Refusing to engage in someone's idiotic gender delusions is none of those things. It's bad when we pretend men can be a woman by wearing a dress. It's conservative when we tell people if they like dresses they are girls and if they like trucks they are boys. It's offensive when a handful of mentally ill people declare simple statements about reality an expression of inexcusable bigotry.
Lol in light of this article me and my best friend were telling our male best friend (who is kind of woke but not a full-blown SJW) what "TERF" supposedly means and he was just not getting it so we asked him if he would date a transwoman and he was like "no! god no!" and then got confused and was like "wait is that a man who's trans?" and we were like yes, yes it is and he was like "OF COURSE I WOULDN'T DATE A MAN I'M STRAIGHT" lmao. This is not even a "normie" dude, this is a dude who is peripherally in the woque scene, and he just couldn't even believe the question. But he would never speak up against TRAs because he has no idea what their word salad even means and checks out when anyone tries to explain it to him. These people think men like him are their allies but they're literally just too bored and annoyed to pay attention to TRA logic and as soon as they start to find out what it entails they are not going to be happy either. That's why Murphy keeps repeating that nothing she's saying is the least bit controversial. It isn't, TRAs are just so deluded they really think normal people are on their side. The media can keep asserting that her opinions are bad and controversial and beyond the pale but as soon as the uninitiated find out what those opinions are they'll be on her side like the rest of us.
It figures that the Times buys into the idea that all these “cancelled” people deserve what was coming to them. “Controversial” would have been a value-neutral term to describe why these people were attacked.
I wish I could say it’s just the New York Times that obviously and intentionally editorializes in regular articles, but I’ve been noticing it in almost all mainstream news sources. It comes out especially hard for trans.
Illustrates how the circlejerk of “samethink” & “rightthink” is damaging, and how these sorts of movements eventually devour themselves & collapse. It’s just too fucking alienating to most people who live in the real world with real responsibilities. Especially as they get older and have less tolerance for bullshit.
This is super interesting in light of the coalition against trans antagonism website (the group that was protesting M. Murphy's latest talk) where they have a little web of connections showing, among others, Jonathan Kay, Meghan Murphy, Quillette, Anna Slatz and Lindsay Shepherd and assert that Murphy is a 'white supremacist' who hangs out with unsavory sorts.
The problem is, when you yourself are deemed unsavory, and people who haven't been "cancelled" yet don't want to publicly associate with you - this is exactly what ends up happening. I have found it a little uncomfortable how nice Meghan Murphy has been about MRAs and antifeminists since this happened to her but the reality is that she, like Lindsay Shepherd, only has a limited number of people she can publicly associate with now and who will help her out and give her a platform, and it's better that those people exist (while having views that she, or we, disagree with) than that they not exist at all. And it's interesting how TRAs are creating this situation and then use the situation they themselves created to "prove" that the people they cancelled were unsavory types all along because of who they end up associating with or where they end up publishing pieces.
I find it interesting that Alice Dreger is so central in all this because I had no idea.
I'm not bothered by feminists interacting with MRAs or antifeminists but specifically I think she's been quite nice to/about them, and by 'nice' I also mean going along with some of their talking points rather than explaining the feminist position. This was particularly obvious in the Benjamin Boyce interviews, where she let some really low hanging fruit comments by Boyce go, just to be amiable I think. I do't necessarily think that this is bad "strategy" insofar as it makes feminism seem more palatable to antifeminist men, but it isn't going to change their minds either because she's not actually explaining why their points are wrong - if they're interested they can look into it more but I doubt they will. They'll just concede she's not "as bad as" other craazy feminists and continue to believe what they believe.
I'm also not sure to what extent feminists should be trying to make feminism palatable to men. This came up in the recent panel talk with Murphy, John Kay and Anna Slatz where Kay started telling off the women in the room for misgendering Morgane Oger, claiming that they won't change minds with "gratuitous impoliteness" - and neither Murphy nor the feminists got a chance to explain why "gratuitious impoliteness" was a mischaracterization, he just backed down because he realized he was mansplaining to a bunch of women. But no one corrected him. I don't like when this happens because it allows misunderstandings about radical feminism to stand in ways that aren't flattering to our position and allow these men to think they still have the higher ground. A lot of the commenters on that video were lamenting that a man was allowed on the panel - I thought his contributions were interesting but not called out or corrected enough, which was fairly disappointing. I get what Murphy's strategy is and I'm not really into purity politics but as she becomes a more important feminist voice in the media I wonder if it wouldn't be better for her to be a bit clearer about some common feminist positions.
I also doubt to what extent MRAs and antifeminists will really care, empathize with, or be convinced by women talking about our concerns and we'll never know if we keep trying to pander to and be nice to them to get them on our side. Like why is this our audience? 50% of the world's population are women and that's enough people to bring about real social change without specifically pandering to the most hostile male demographics.
She isn’t really that central, and she’s been complaining on Twitter that the article makes her seem more involved than she actually is. Her main role has been writing a book about a few “cancelled” intellectuals (some of whom were “cancelled” before this shit really took off), and she’s been trying to make a case that being the target of an Internet outrage mob is bad for people’s mental health, but that’s kind of it. She’s otherwise a pretty obedient trans “ally”.
> TRAs are creating this situation and then use the situation they themselves created to "prove" that the people they cancelled were unsavory types all along because of who they end up associating with or where they end up publishing pieces.
That needs to be repeated. It's a plot. A ploy, a trap. Fuck 'em and stop caring.
I hate to even use this term because of how it's overused but it's an obviously fascistic tactic that comes up again and again when a government/group/organization tries to exert social control. It's extremely transparent but strangely people are buying it.
Interesting article. Today’s “cancel-er” is tomorrow’s “cancel-ee”, I’ve seen it more times than I can possibly count. They are standing on a crumbling foundation and it’s only a matter of time before it collapses under their feet.
Why was this flagged? I found this an incredibly interesting view into this 'cancel culture' that I've heard referenced vaguely, but never described explicitly. With an added bonus of getting an up-to-date view on the "things you can't say" in 2019. I would love to see the smart folks of HN discuss it.
> Cancellation does present a question about power, and who has it.
Neither side has it. The people with money have it, as always. Follow the money, and you can predict who gets cancelled and who doesn't.
Though there is an argument to be made for companies vastly overestimating the short-term negative financial impact of "offending" the various tiny, non-conformist factions in society due to how loud they are, and underestimating the long-term loss of faith caused by acting in league with those small factions against the majority of the population due to the "silent" in "silent majority".