"Because for them, the term has no ACTUAL objective meaning" - Nova referring to "cancel culture" oh I see, like the term "racist?"
Well, UA, you've got diaper filled trashcans like oldfella and TR agreeing with you. Does that make you pause and reflect? At all? Anything? Hmm? Any gears turning in there?
What does it say about when people agree with you? I'm surprised that they don't end up on suicide watch to be honest.
I dunno, what's my sin? I know it's not voting for a WWE villain "to own the libs" and almost causing the end of democracy, and magnifying a plague 10,000 time worse than it needed to be. I know I can be a bit of a pest, but in the longer run, the world is better off I was here. The pest parts were worth it. Whilst you pretty much have to cure all the baby cancer on Earth to work off that wrestling president.
I honestly don’t see the problem here. I’m not trying to win leftforge points here. Lord knows I disagree with @Diacanu or others on a number of things, but it hurts nobody to just refer to people the way they want. No matter what I think of it, if it stops them from feeling lesser of themselves, mission accomplished, they didn’t slit their wrists. As someone who suffers from depression,I can emphasize. I don’t think that’s much to ask.
Yes, but also no. If a man says "Whites are entitled to be superior over non-whites in all things" that's not disprovable in the same sense as "the earth is flat" yet one is not out of line to say "That's simply wrong."
AH! But common courtesy is BY DEFINITION ***NOT*** a demand. It is yours to offer or withhold as you like - and yet is is mine, or anyone else's to say "your reaction is discourteous" - that's not policing, because we have no power to enforce different behavior. Merely an observation. Thus the comment you replied to, describing an example of commonly practiced discourteous behavior, is not relevant to your "you can't make me!" whining. It simply means you have elected to be an asshole and someone else noticed and remarked upon it.
Like "politically correct" and "virtue signalling" and "social justice warrior" and "woke" and "Identity politics" to name a few others.
I pretty much agree on all those, but in general that isn't what is happening. An agreement/invitation is made for Person A to speak at Venue B. It isn't a rally, this isn't someone like David Duke drooling hate over a loving crowd of genetic failures, it isn't even some dimwit anti-vaxxer looking to preach to the converted. It's an academic, done the legwork, got the peer reviewed papers. A set of students take the hump and place pressure on the venue to revoke the agreement/invitation, and succeed. That's the legitimisation of banning things based on groups being offended, which should never be tolerated. I'm somewhat confused about this response - I mean, there are few things, if any, more injurious or rights-removing than slavery or genocide, so this kind of conflicts with itself. If you go that far down, then thinking is an action. Perhaps I should have stated a physical action (although thinking and speaking also have physical aspects), but airing an opinion shouldn't be a crime - I have zero problems with those opinions being challenged, or if they're done in a blatant way to incite a physical response - but there is a definite movement to quash debate in certain instances.
It's no longer just a right-wing thing, it's been interesting over the last few years seeing the left and right switch places on some things. Globalisation and the internet have really taken a hammer to things. Only thing I can think of as a recent parallel is UK euroscepticism, which was the province of the left in the 70's and early 80's, and then very much became a right-wing issue with the left-wing sceptics virtually ignored.
I'm ambivalent about the definitions changing - language is a living thing (well, unless you're France) and if we go down that route... I mean the South African black community would like everyone to stop using 'apartheid' quite as much for a start, but the middle aged bit of me does wish things stopped changing definitions quite as quickly as they do.
Nothing like that. Biological sex is a genetic thing, but biological gender gets ascertained 10-12 weeks in when various sections of chromosome 1 and and the sex genes get triggered, which leads to a raft of possibilities. There are several societies which recognise third genders, I really don't get why it's so hard for us in the West to think outside the binary box on this.
This is so true. Some of my very left leaning friends were all “We love Corbyn! Champion of the EU!” Ok mate, might want to check out some of JC’s past thoughts on our union I don’t think any political persuasion is beyond manipulating and leveraging public mood to their own aims.
From Wikipedia (cuz other than that, I know nothing of the case), it doesn't sound like what she said was academic, legwork, peer reviewed. It just speaks about her opinion. Now, I agree that people who send death threats and other BS because of what someone said publicly is wrong. But, until the human race can control the human race, colleges and universities should not be forced to host a speaker that has the potential to incite violence on the campus. You would rather chance a violent situation allowing her to speak when what she has to say has nothing to do with science - peer reviewed or not. What I was getting at here, is ... Frederick Douglas. No science, no leg work, no peer-reviewed papers, but he spoke out against slavery. Yes, he should have had his platform to speak. Because what he was saying was against injuring a group of people. What Suzanne Moore was speaking about was in favor of injuring a group of people. Lets put it this way. You're sitting on your sofa watching television with your wife and you think "that actress is hot, I'd totally f- her". No one cares. But, if you say out loud for your wife to hear "that actress is hot, I'd totally F- her". Your wife may take offense to that. And she has every right to take offense. It's that easy. You* say anything you want. But, other people do not have to like it. and no, they do not have to listen just because you* want to speak. (* general you)
That's about Suzanne Moore, the journo who treated pretty abysmally by the Graun for standing up for Selina Todd, who is the academic in question. Have a read up on what happened to her. Again, Moore wasn't the one no-platformed at the university. And if we allow threats of violence to silence academics, well okay, we've no problems with the likes of BP, Shell, etc. taking open season on environmental scientists? Expanding the scope, should Greenpeace have just gone "oh well, call it a day" whrn the French opted to bomb one of their boats? How was she, or Todd for that matter, favouring injuring people? You appear to have decided upon a conclusion here... I have nor arguments with that, but that's not what we're discussing. We're (partly) discussing no-platforming/deplatforming which isn't any of that. It is mob enforcement of speech. If someone is invited to speak, then yes, no one is required to go. No one is required to agree with what is said. However, mobbing up and forcing venues to remove invites isn't doing either of that, it is using implied force to silence people. You know, what most of history's evilest shits did.
You referenced Suzanne Moore, so that is what I looked up. I did not do any more than to google her name and read the wikipedia article. If she is not the person silenced, why bring her up? Global Warming is science. It has been researched and tested and peer reviewed. So, no, anyone against global warming counter actions should not silence those who are. If something is happening outside of the guidelines I presented, please let me know. Because I'm just not seeing that happening. I know there are a lot of podcasts out there - many pretending to be non-partisan or completely independent. But, they are not. They are repeating lies because it is what people want to hear. and that sells their podcasts. That doesn't make what they are saying true.
I referenced Suzanne Moore early on as someone whose career was attacked, I also pointed out she was defending the no-platformed Selina Todd. That you have been defending what was done to them without fully comprehending things, and just with a cursory googling, I feel drives home my entire point far better than I've managed so far. So, I guess thank you? And here's the thing, a lot of the science around the biology of trans individuals hasn't been settled. So, we're all cool on rights and the like. There are, however, questions beyond that regarding treatments, especially with regards to kids. We're probably not going to have all the answers for decades, because society is still catching up with biology and there are reams of ethical considerations in play. It's an absolute bloody minefield, where you can risk not giving a treatment and royally fucking up a life, or risk doing a treatment and royally fucking up a life, so much is medical guesswork at the moment. If you make the right call, then fantastic, you've improved a life beyond measure. Get it wrong... I completely get the desire to want others be similar, I've known a few trans individuals, and it's a lonely, frightening place to be and support is hard to find in their own familial and social circles usually, but there's a real risk of projection causing material harm. I am not going to suggest I have any answers, I don't, but I do know that assuming bias as gospel and making an effort to silence any dissent from that gospel isn't an answer either. Science is all about questions, and changing based on evidence. I also know that women asking for safe spaces away from people with male genitals, regardless of gender, isn't an unreasonable request and those who fling terms like TERF at victims of domestic abuse, and their supporters, who take that position should be ashamed of themselves. I provided a link to Selina Todd's wiki page, that's one example, and you'll be able to dig out more. Oh, I don't listen to podcasts. I probably should at some point, but they seem to be members of the public talking bollocks mostly.
And sorry if that was a little terse, I was a bit aggravated that you've seem to be arguing points with bothering to read up on the persons involved, and I've a release being a twat at the moment, so I'm a grumpy cunt today.
Ok. So, from Selina Todd's wikipedia ... It still sounds like she is trying pit cis women against trans women. I don't know anyone who is saying the science with transpersons/gender dysphoria/homosexuality/etc. is absolute and should not be questioned. People are just asking for people with a platform to stop making life that much more difficult for them. Speak where you can, write your books, do your research. But, what you cannot do is speak publicly things that will intentionally hurt others and expect not to be called out on it. The point is, she spoke about things publicly and was denounced for them, publicly. It doesn't matter if she is right or wrong, what matters is keeping the school and students safe. And I would hope that Selina Todd would agree. This appears to be a one-time incident and it hasn't affected her career. I hear what you are saying. I just don't think it's as prevalent as is being condemned and I also don't think it's anything new. If someone says something publicly and the public doesn't like it, well then ... the public doesn't want it. However, that doesn't mean she can't and won't find other venues to speak. I did google "selina todd speaking engagements" and found a lot of articles saying the same thing you are saying - that people in academics are being silenced. So, I see where you are coming from. But, I also see that people on the opposite side of the fence are getting the same treatment. Universities are dropping trans and LGBT speakers. I've been hearing this same argument from my father for 50+ years. Everyone wants to speak, but don't want to take responsibility for what they are saying.
I understand. I get the same way sometimes. But, you did give a name and that is the name I googled. You provided another name and I googled that name. But, I still think your argument is wrong. It's not a new phenomenon and people do have the right to say "you know what ..., I changed my mind. Please don't speak at our venue."
