Cancel Culture

[blastula]

I read about the history of cancel culture. Apparently, it started around 2014

Who says 2014? It's been going on forever. Heard this fascinating interview on the history of stand-up comedy, it discusses people getting cancelled since its beginning, going back to the 1800s.

Episode 1278 - "Canceled Comedy" w/ Kliph Nesteroff and David Bianculli — WTF with Marc Maron Podcast

Marc is trying to get to the bottom of something. What does it really mean to be 'canceled' in comedy? Is it something comedians have always worried about? What does actual censorship in comedy look like? And who or what is traditionally responsible for censoring the comedy world? Marc talks to come

www.wtfpod.com

Historically, cancelling has been a largely right wing endeavor, but in the media it's been largely labelled as a left wing malady. Every group does it, but only think it's a thing when it happens to their group. And some cancellings are good, others bad, depends on the case and perspective.

Agree with Ruth that the worst kind of cancelling is of artistic works, and especially the long prized ones, whether it's because the artist has become "problematic" or because of something in the work maybe hasn't aged well, sometimes by people who can't discern between including a bad guy in a story and endorsing the bad guy.

The American Library Association comes out with their Top 10 Most Challenged Books List every year and if you look at the older ones the challenges are almost all for religious fundie reasons, but lately there's been a shift. The right and fundies still dominate as challengers, and the anti-crt freaks are there now too, but there is a left wing segment showing up as well, for what I would call "I am too stupid to even read" and plain misanthropic reasons. To Kill a Mockingbird has been making the list for about the last 10 years, and is being challenged because of "racism" and for "featuring a 'white savior' character." Of Mice and Men has been on there, also for "racism." The left can be so clueless.

Another horrible type of cancelling by the left is of writers for not being the right identity to write about certain characters, which cancelling is rampant in YA lit. The YA community are viciously woke, they'll get your book unpublished before it's even in print.

Cancelling attempts are not death sentences though, they can be resisted and even overcome at times by simply not caving in, by showing some spine by the cancellees and their employers or publishers. Notwithstanding that some cancellings are good, some I want to see work.

 

[Angry Floof]

I find it foolish that as a society, we are trending toward removing everything that might possibly offend a particular group of people. Now, understand that I am not saying that things such as racism or unwarranted venom against another group like gays shouldn’t be eliminated. I am saying that trying to remove all historical references which might contain some offensive ideas in literature or the arts is a step too far. Like it or not, this is our history and should not be hidden. No one is guaranteed a life free of encountering ideas that might be personally offensive. Learn from the experience and go on with your life. No one can force you to suffer emotionally without your permission.

over.

Ruth

I think the appearance of moving toward removing everything that might offend particular groups of people is just that, an appearance. What I fear we are heading toward is a society that allows for the already privileged to use technological advances to further ignore, abuse, and demonize people who are not like them or just people they don't like.

What gives me hope is that the younger the generation, the more an inclusive and broad their world view. Older generations have to work our brains to embrace all of humanity as human, as "us," and find the younger generations' refusal to believe 1950s American attitudes are not the ideal. Younger generations don't have to work their brains to have a broader world view. They're born into it. Born into a widely connected world where they can't hide from certain realities that previous generations could.

Those who are not so generous in their regard for humanity, whether by personality or by ideology, will actually have to work their brains to not notice a world that is wildly diverse yet all the same in our humanness. I think the screaming and violence from the right is exactly that, a visceral struggle to fight against the world around them and fight against people they see not being like them and not doing what they think they should be doing.

Hopefully the reality that no one is in charge will sink into younger generations before they kill us all off. Hopefully, they'll recognize that it's only cooperation and compassion that can ensure the peace and well being of a tribe of seven billion.

 

[southernhybrid]

All of your responses are interesting, although many of them aren't really about what I was referring to in the OP. I got the year 2014 from several things I read that used that date as the beginning of the term, "cancel culture". I realize that people, art, books etc. have been banned throughout history. I was primarily speaking about contemporary people who were fired, banned, bullied or harshly criticized for one mistaken remark or one unpopular opinion etc. Of course, these threads take on a life of their own, as we all have our own perspectives and understandings of various terms.

 

[southernhybrid]

I find it foolish that as a society, we are trending toward removing everything that might possibly offend a particular group of people. Now, understand that I am not saying that things such as racism or unwarranted venom against another group like gays shouldn’t be eliminated. I am saying that trying to remove all historical references which might contain some offensive ideas in literature or the arts is a step too far. Like it or not, this is our history and should not be hidden. No one is guaranteed a life free of encountering ideas that might be personally offensive. Learn from the experience and go on with your life. No one can force you to suffer emotionally without your permission.

over.

Ruth

I think the appearance of moving toward removing everything that might offend particular groups of people is just that, an appearance. What I fear we are heading toward is a society that allows for the already privileged to use technological advances to further ignore, abuse, and demonize people who are not like them or just people they don't like.

What gives me hope is that the younger the generation, the more an inclusive and broad their world view. Older generations have to work our brains to embrace all of humanity as human, as "us," and find the younger generations' refusal to believe 1950s American attitudes are not the ideal. Younger generations don't have to work their brains to have a broader world view. They're born into it. Born into a widely connected world where they can't hide from certain realities that previous generations could.

Those who are not so generous in their regard for humanity, whether by personality or by ideology, will actually have to work their brains to not notice a world that is wildly diverse yet all the same in our humanness. I think the screaming and violence from the right is exactly that, a visceral struggle to fight against the world around them and fight against people they see not being like them and not doing what they think they should be doing.

Hopefully the reality that no one is in charge will sink into younger generations before they kill us all off. Hopefully, they'll recognize that it's only cooperation and compassion that can ensure the peace and well being of a tribe of seven billion.

Yeah. I get all that, but there are plenty of haters in the younger generation, so I'm not optimistic that they will save us.

I'm off topic, but I was so upset over what's going on in the world these days, that I had to sit and listen to one of my favorite CD mixes that contains a number of soul songs from the 60s and 70s. Sadly, all of the optimism in those songs, sometimes known as music with a message, hasn't come to fruition. I was listening to songs like, Ray Charles performing "One drop of Love", or The Isley Brothers, "Caravan of Love", or Curtis Mayfield, "Just a Little Bit of Love". These were all optimistic songs about bringing people together. Oh, I forgot, "Love Train". Where is the love in the world? It seems to me that we've gone in the wrong direction and there's more hate than I've seen in my lifetime, despite the optimism that some of us had back in the day when we were idealistic youths. But, I digress. Bringing it back.....Cancelling someone for a dumb tweet or an unpopular opinion is anything but love. It's certainly not going to unite us. I think that may have been what motivated me to start this discussion, regardless of what directions it takes.

 

[Angry Floof]

I don't think you understand how any of this works. No one is canceling anyone. A lot of people now have access to microphones as well as exposure to messages about people who make stupid statements. One person might make the choice to no longer follow that celebrity or buy somebody's stuff. When you have thousands or millions of people also reacting that way, yes, it can often be wildly unfair in how it affects that person. That is a problem of all of culture. Why are we so reactive and callous? But the important thing is that overwhelmingly, there is no one choosing to destroy someone. Social media amplifies stuff, and the more toxic side effects of that have not yet been resolved by society.

Whining and blaming does nothing but further entrench people in their opinions based in a less than accurate understanding the world around them. At best, you're no help. At worst, you help contribute more garbage to society that delays the kind of changes that can minimize the risks and toxicity.

You and Steve Bank should hook up.

 

[rousseau]

Where is the love in the world? It seems to me that we've gone in the wrong direction and there's more hate than I've seen in my lifetime, despite the optimism that some of us had back in the day when we were idealistic youths. But, I digress.

It takes a bit of imagination to recognize that there's less hate and violence in the world now than there's ever been. But since about.. 1995.. we've had the ability to see it, everywhere.

I'm pointing out the obvious, but it's a critical point. Not only does the internet make everything visible, it self-selects all of the worst things that happen. Our perception isn't reality - people are more conscious, peaceful, and informed now, moreso than they've ever been. But our brains weren't built with the internet in mind.

 

[Angry Floof]

Every generation in human history has thought the world was going to pot and kids today are disrespectful, blah blah blah.

Every generation thinks they are seeing the worst times in history.

Knowing this, you'd think people would challenge their own version of it instead of just repeating it over and over.

 

[Politesse]

The only new thing about "cancel culture" is the name - people have been retributively boycotting celebrities, scholars, and media for as long as mass systems of media distribution have existed. This is unlikely to change.

Sure, the name is fairly new, but I've never known of people who were highly respected in their communities, suddenly losing their jobs and having their reputations damaged due to one ignorant remark they made or tweeted. Of course boycotts of famous people have always happened, but in the past it was due to things like discovering that a famous celebrity was a serial rapist, or was laundering money etc. That's reasonable. But, what I'm objecting to are things like the the example in the OP. A highly respected man, lost his career and reputation over one tweet that was meant to be a compliment. Even after he apologized and said he was beginning to realize that he needs to be more thoughtful in how he expresses himself, he was still fired. Now, he is no longer able to serve his community, all due to the reaction to one dumb tweet. This may have happened in the past, but I have not seen any evidence that it was as common as it is today.

I'm not talking about people who are obviously racist or sexist, like Joe Rogan. People like him don't do anything constructive. They just create a lot of hate and noise. People like that are certainly a problem, but that's not what I was referring to when I said I objected to "cancel culture".

Times change and what was once considered acceptable is suddenly considered to be so bad, that a person's reputation is destroyed over a minor offense. I don't see how this helps bring people together. I don't see how this helps teach people anything. If anything, destroying and bullying a person over a minor offense has the potential to have a very damaging impact on society, regardless of which side it comes from. It causes more hate and divisiveness, not more unity and understanding.

Wouldn't it be better to discuss the offense, accept the apology and move on? Or if a book written 100 years ago, contains offensive words or ideas, is it acceptable to ban that book, or is it better to be able to read the book without over reacting to what may have been acceptable in that era? When did we become so easily offended? Sometimes it appears that young progressive white people are being very patronizing, by telling minorities what should offend them.

It might, but it seems quite unlikely to me that this will change in any meaningful respect. It think the only thing that has really changed here is that social media has increased access to each others' gaffes and made it possible to symbolically punish common individuals the way only public figures formerly had to fear. The social dynamics at play are not novel in a fundamental way.

I think it's leading to exaggerated accounts of the problem, also. I teach college freshman and sophomores for a living; if their generation were truly nothing but a "brood of vipers" out to take down anyone that offends them, I'd have been fired years ago. Rather, I think these internet mobs occassionally form, and are amplified by the media to make them seem much more commonplace than they actually are. This is not a defense of mob mentality, only an observation that it is not our normative social orientation, nor are occasional bursts of mass outrage a new phenomenon.

 

[southernhybrid]

I don't think you understand how any of this works. No one is canceling anyone. A lot of people now have access to microphones as well as exposure to messages about people who make stupid statements. One person might make the choice to no longer follow that celebrity or buy somebody's stuff. When you have thousands or millions of people also reacting that way, yes, it can often be wildly unfair in how it affects that person. That is a problem of all of culture. Why are we so reactive and callous? But the important thing is that overwhelmingly, there is no one choosing to destroy someone. Social media amplifies stuff, and the more toxic side effects of that have not yet been resolved by society.

Whining and blaming does nothing but further entrench people in their opinions based in a less than accurate understanding the world around them. At best, you're no help. At worst, you help contribute more garbage to society that delays the kind of changes that can minimize the risks and toxicity.

You and Steve Bank should hook up.

And, to me it appears as if you are missing the point. Thanks for the snark. It adds so much to the discussion. /s. Did you bother to read the link in the OP? If so, explain to me why you think it's okay to fire and destroy the reputation of a person who has served his community as both an academic and a physician for many years, due to one stupid tweet, even after the man apologized and admitted he was wrong for saying what he did? That's really the type of cancelling that I was interested in exploring when I started this thread.

It's not like the man in the article is the only one who has suffered from this type of bullying. What's going on? Why are we becoming so judgmental, based on one opinion or one poorly worded comment or tweet?

I am fully aware that people, including minorities and women have suffered from prejudice, hate etc. for hundreds of years. I get it, but since when do two wrongs make a right? I'm not a vengeful person. That may be why I have difficulty understanding this crazy condemning of anyone who says something that is't politically correct, which is often done out of simple ignorance, not out of hate or prejudice. And guess what? A lot of minorities don't like being told by white people what they should be insulted by. It's one thing to defend and be supportive of others when asked or when needed. It's another thing to patronize them by telling them they are victims. When did it become unacceptable to forgive someone after they apologized for making a dumb mistake?

 

[southernhybrid]

The only new thing about "cancel culture" is the name - people have been retributively boycotting celebrities, scholars, and media for as long as mass systems of media distribution have existed. This is unlikely to change.

Sure, the name is fairly new, but I've never known of people who were highly respected in their communities, suddenly losing their jobs and having their reputations damaged due to one ignorant remark they made or tweeted. Of course boycotts of famous people have always happened, but in the past it was due to things like discovering that a famous celebrity was a serial rapist, or was laundering money etc. That's reasonable. But, what I'm objecting to are things like the the example in the OP. A highly respected man, lost his career and reputation over one tweet that was meant to be a compliment. Even after he apologized and said he was beginning to realize that he needs to be more thoughtful in how he expresses himself, he was still fired. Now, he is no longer able to serve his community, all due to the reaction to one dumb tweet. This may have happened in the past, but I have not seen any evidence that it was as common as it is today.

I'm not talking about people who are obviously racist or sexist, like Joe Rogan. People like him don't do anything constructive. They just create a lot of hate and noise. People like that are certainly a problem, but that's not what I was referring to when I said I objected to "cancel culture".

Times change and what was once considered acceptable is suddenly considered to be so bad, that a person's reputation is destroyed over a minor offense. I don't see how this helps bring people together. I don't see how this helps teach people anything. If anything, destroying and bullying a person over a minor offense has the potential to have a very damaging impact on society, regardless of which side it comes from. It causes more hate and divisiveness, not more unity and understanding.

Wouldn't it be better to discuss the offense, accept the apology and move on? Or if a book written 100 years ago, contains offensive words or ideas, is it acceptable to ban that book, or is it better to be able to read the book without over reacting to what may have been acceptable in that era? When did we become so easily offended? Sometimes it appears that young progressive white people are being very patronizing, by telling minorities what should offend them.

It might, but it seems quite unlikely to me that this will change in any meaningful respect. It think the only thing that has really changed here is that social media has increased access to each others' gaffes and made it possible to symbolically punish common individuals the way only public figures formerly had to fear. The social dynamics at play are not novel in a fundamental way.

I think it's leading to exaggerated accounts of the problem, also. I teach college freshman and sophomores for a living; if their generation were truly nothing but a "brood of vipers" out to take down anyone that offends them, I'd have been fired years ago. Rather, I think these internet mobs occassionally form, and are amplified by the media to make them seem much more commonplace than they actually are. This is not a defense of mob mentality, only an observation that it is not our normative social orientation, nor are occasional bursts of mass outrage a new phenomenon.

Of course, no one group is the same. As a boomer, I am well aware of how my generation has been stereotyped. The younger generation is like all generations, a mix of various points of views and moral values. I agree with you that social media has added to this issue. The guy in the OP would never have been bullied if he hadn't bothered to tweet his stupid remark, but instead simply looked at the photo of the model and silently admired her beauty. Social media has brought out the worst in us. It's often caused more hate and division, as too many people judge others based on minor things. Even here, we sometimes say things to each other that we would never say in person.

I've served all kinds of people In my 42 years as a nurse. I've been in the homes of the rich and the extremely poor, including people who held views that were very different from my own. But, as a nurse, my primary goal was not to judge and always to advocate for those who I was there to serve. Perhaps that's why it's so difficult for me to understand this relatively new obsession with pointing out each others errors and faults. All humans have faults and weaknesses. "Canceling" someone due to a minor fault is cruel and unnecessary. It doesn't help move us forward.

 

[Politesse]

. And guess what? A lot of minorities don't like being told by white people what they should be insulted by. It's one thing to defend and be supportive of others when asked or when needed. It's another thing to patronize them by telling them they are victims. When did it become unacceptable to forgive someone after they apologized for making a dumb mistake?

I don't understand this part of your argument at all. Your feeling is that a Black can criticize a White for saying something racist, but Whites should never attack their own? Because that's "patronizing"? I don't criticize racist speech because it should offend Blacks, I criticize it because it does offend me.

 

[southernhybrid]

Where is the love in the world? It seems to me that we've gone in the wrong direction and there's more hate than I've seen in my lifetime, despite the optimism that some of us had back in the day when we were idealistic youths. But, I digress.

It takes a bit of imagination to recognize that there's less hate and violence in the world now than there's ever been. But since about.. 1995.. we've had the ability to see it, everywhere.

I'm pointing out the obvious, but it's a critical point. Not only does the internet make everything visible, it self-selects all of the worst things that happen. Our perception isn't reality - people are more conscious, peaceful, and informed now, moreso than they've ever been. But our brains weren't built with the internet in mind.

A few years ago, I would have agreed with you about the world becoming less hateful. Considering what has happened in my country over the last five years or so and considering the war in Ukraine, what's happening in many small counties in the Middle East, the spike in crime in the. US, as well as some other Western countries, the rise of white supremacy, and in some cases, even some of this absurd cancelling of people who have different views or say something ignorant, the stereotyping of different generations, and the rise in gun ownership, etc. I just don't see that people are getting more peaceful. Not that it's on topic, but my state is in the midst of allowing anyone to carry a concealed gun without a permit or a background check. How's that gonna help this dire situation?

I love the that we have access to information due to the Internet, but at the same time, we have access to lots of misinformation, conspiracy theories and hate groups. I wish I were as optimistic as you seem to be, but I just don't see that we humans are making progress that will lead to more peace and love. To be honest, I live in a community that is very racially integrated and where most people seem to at least tolerate each other, often living side by side peacefully. But, even in my little city, there has been a dramatic rise in violent crime over the last two years, and it's far worse in Atlanta. Maybe the pandemic has made people nuts.

On top of all that, there's the issue of climate change, which some people continue to deny. As we see more damaging weather, often leaving more people displaced, I fear that things will get even worse. I have a wonderful life, but I'm also living in the final years of my life, but I do have concerns about the world that my grandchildren will be facing as adults, and to me, this new version of cancel culture is just one more thing that causes hate, division and misunderstanding.

 

[southernhybrid]

. And guess what? A lot of minorities don't like being told by white people what they should be insulted by. It's one thing to defend and be supportive of others when asked or when needed. It's another thing to patronize them by telling them they are victims. When did it become unacceptable to forgive someone after they apologized for making a dumb mistake?

I don't understand this part of your argument at all. Your feeling is that a Black can criticize a White for saying something racist, but Whites should never attack their own? Because that's "patronizing"? I don't criticize racist speech because it should offend Blacks, I criticize it because it does offend me.

That's not what I'm saying at all. It's a little bit difficult to explain here. Of course, white people should criticize racist speech and behavior. That's not the same as telling a Black person that they are a victim because of some thing said or done that causes the white person to feel uncomfortable and feel it's their duty to act like the white savior. I'll see if I can find an example.

The only thing that comes to mind right now is something I discussed with a close Black friend earlier this week. She and I like to discuss politics and race relations. I had read about a book that was highly criticized for using the term "colored people". The book was written during the era when this was an acceptable term to use. I lived through the 60s, when Black people asked to be called black, and not to be referred to as colored people any longer. I guess you could call it a movement or something like that. They didn't need any white people to tell them how they wanted to be labeled. They chose the term black, as in the James Brown lyric, "Say it loud. I'm Black and I'm proud."
After that point in time, it became an insult to refer to a black person as colored.

My friend agreed that it was foolish to ban a book that used language that is no longer considered acceptable, but was during the time it was written. Black people don't need a white savior to determine what is and isn't insulting. I'm not talking about obvious racism, like when some asshole Republican said he wanted to see Judge Jackson's SAT scores. That was racist. That was worthy of being criticized by all of us. Damn. I'm having a hard time explaining this in writing, but you obviously misunderstood what I'm trying to say and I apologize for that. I guess I'm trying to find a way to say that minorities don't need white people to tell them they are victims. Sure, we can stand up with them when appropriate, but let them be the ones who lead their movements and determine what is insulting. They don't need us for that.

Btw, my friend hates the term "people of color" as well as "African American". I can understand that. I'm not sure why the term African American became a thing. I'm happy to refer to any group by their preferred term, even if the term doesn't really make sense to me. I hate the term white person too. I'm beige. So, it is difficult to know what terms to use when identifying any group of people these days. I wish we could simply call each other humans but we are obviously not heading in that direction at this point in time.

 

[rousseau]

Where is the love in the world? It seems to me that we've gone in the wrong direction and there's more hate than I've seen in my lifetime, despite the optimism that some of us had back in the day when we were idealistic youths. But, I digress.

It takes a bit of imagination to recognize that there's less hate and violence in the world now than there's ever been. But since about.. 1995.. we've had the ability to see it, everywhere.

I'm pointing out the obvious, but it's a critical point. Not only does the internet make everything visible, it self-selects all of the worst things that happen. Our perception isn't reality - people are more conscious, peaceful, and informed now, moreso than they've ever been. But our brains weren't built with the internet in mind.

A few years ago, I would have agreed with you about the world becoming less hateful. Considering what has happened in my country over the last five years or so and considering the war in Ukraine, what's happening in many small counties in the Middle East, the spike in crime in the. US, as well as some other Western countries, the rise of white supremacy, and in some cases, even some of this absurd cancelling of people who have different views or say something ignorant, the stereotyping of different generations, and the rise in gun ownership, etc. I just don't see that people are getting more peaceful. Not that it's on topic, but my state is in the midst of allowing anyone to carry a concealed gun without a permit or a background check. How's that gonna help this dire situation?

I love the that we have access to information due to the Internet, but at the same time, we have access to lots of misinformation, conspiracy theories and hate groups. I wish I were as optimistic as you seem to be, but I just don't see that we humans are making progress that will lead to more peace and love. To be honest, I live in a community that is very racially integrated and where most people seem to at least tolerate each other, often living side by side peacefully. But, even in my little city, there has been a dramatic rise in violent crime over the last two years, and it's far worse in Atlanta. Maybe the pandemic has made people nuts.

On top of all that, there's the issue of climate change, which some people continue to deny. As we see more damaging weather, often leaving more people displaced, I fear that things will get even worse. I have a wonderful life, but I'm also living in the final years of my life, but I do have concerns about the world that my grandchildren will be facing as adults, and to me, this new version of cancel culture is just one more thing that causes hate, division and misunderstanding.

I don't know that it's optimism, but I think you'll find if you look into research and statistics the world (and this is important) - as a whole - is getting more peaceful. Steven Pinker even wrote a book about it.

That doesn't mean every region is moving in this direction, possibly including the U.S., but if you look at the whole globe things have never been better.

 

[southernhybrid]

The only book I've read by Pinker is "The Blank Slate". But, I'm glad you mentioned him because there was an attempt to cancel him and this was the type of thing I have been trying to discuss in this thread. Apparently, I haven't done a very good job of getting the message across.

https://reason.com/2020/07/10/steven-pinker-beats-cancel-culture-attack/

A gang of anti-liberal cancel culturalists came for Harvard linguist Steven Pinker in the form of an open letter to the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) calling for his removal as one of the LSA's distinguished fellows and as a listed linguistics media expert. Why should Pinker be "canceled" by the group? Because, the writers allege, Pinker "has a history of speaking over genuine grievances and downplaying injustices, frequently by misrepresenting facts, and at the exact moments when Black and Brown people are mobilizing against systemic racism and for crucial changes." Interestingly, while the letter claims that Pinker's nefarious behavior is taking place at the "exact moments" of anti-racist mobilization, most of the allegedly egregious instances it cites occurred years earlier.

The letter, which lists nearly 600 signatories, cites six instances of when Pinker purportedly engaged in "a pattern of drowning out the voices of people suffering from racist and sexist violence." Let's take a brief look at each assertion.

 

[rousseau]

The only book I've read by Pinker is "The Blank Slate". But, I'm glad you mentioned him because there was an attempt to cancel him and this was the type of thing I have been trying to discuss in this thread. Apparently, I haven't done a very good job of getting the message across.

https://reason.com/2020/07/10/steven-pinker-beats-cancel-culture-attack/

A gang of anti-liberal cancel culturalists came for Harvard linguist Steven Pinker in the form of an open letter to the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) calling for his removal as one of the LSA's distinguished fellows and as a listed linguistics media expert. Why should Pinker be "canceled" by the group? Because, the writers allege, Pinker "has a history of speaking over genuine grievances and downplaying injustices, frequently by misrepresenting facts, and at the exact moments when Black and Brown people are mobilizing against systemic racism and for crucial changes." Interestingly, while the letter claims that Pinker's nefarious behavior is taking place at the "exact moments" of anti-racist mobilization, most of the allegedly egregious instances it cites occurred years earlier.

The letter, which lists nearly 600 signatories, cites six instances of when Pinker purportedly engaged in "a pattern of drowning out the voices of people suffering from racist and sexist violence." Let's take a brief look at each assertion.

I know, I'm just killing time mostly.

I'd be interested in the perspective of Politesse about attacks on Academia. The more I read into it, the more it seems that what's kosher to study and publish is very political for this very reason. I bought a book recently called 'The Sociobiological Imagination' which discussed this - how other fields have reacted to the issue of biological determinism. This strain of thought in academia is unpopular, despite maybe being more accurate than some past theories disciplines have held.

Any academic that tries to make certain biological arguments gets put under the microscope, which seems to hinder our collective, scientific understanding.

 

[Angry Floof]

Pinker is controversial and divisive for a great many reasons, and he has not been fucking cancelled! For fuck's sake he has not lost anything except a level of respectability that he assumed was unimpeachable.

Most affluent, intellectual, white men think this way. It's a deep assumption that they've never (until now) had to question or acknowledge. It's a blind spot. That's why so many NOT cancelled, perfectly fine, unharmed in any way, still affluent and elite white males who still have big audiences and lots of supporters are crying left and right.

Pinker, Sam Harris, Stephen Fry, etc., all know damn well what blind spots are and why it's important to examine them. They all know that just because an assumption has been embedded in your psyche for your whole life, it doesn't make it true.

They're just not used to being questioned or not being able to easily dismiss and talk over criticism.

The playing field of vocal power is a bit more level than it was before social media. Whatever problems may be caused by or occur within social media, people with social power actually having to hear voices of criticism isn't one of them.

 

[Angry Floof]

Thanks for the snark. It adds so much to the discussion. /s.

You're welcome.

Did you bother to read the link in the OP? If so, explain to me why you think it's okay to fire and destroy the reputation of a person who has served his community as both an academic and a physician for many years, due to one stupid tweet, even after the man apologized and admitted he was wrong for saying what he did?

Did you bother to read any of my comments? Please show me where I said any variation of, "it's okay to fire and destroy the reputation of a person who has served his community as both an academic and a physician for many years, due to one stupid tweet, even after the man apologized and admitted he was wrong for saying what he did."

Yes, I read the link. I agree that it was probably wrong for the hospital to fire Dr. Liberman. (The university lifted his suspension.) Very unfair, probably. But he's still ok. He's not on the streets or bereft, and he's still working as a professor.

It would be great if you could be at least as concerned about a real aspect of culture that is ok with brutalizing women and children and the thousands of women who are harassed, stalked, terrorized, abused, and murdered as you are about affluent white doctors getting fired from their hospital job but not their professor job and who are still generally fine. Social media is also used by men who use technology and social media to access their targets and do things like post photos of women naked to shame them for having bodies. But I don't think that's the kind of cruelty that really grabs your outrage.

Society at large, at least the status quo, mainstream society that holds the bulk of power in our institutions, finds shaming and punishing women acceptable and going easy on men who abuse women. No one has to claim some ideological boogieman. We know who overwhelmingly does these things.

What part of culture would support these things going on and on with seemingly no end in sight?

What part of our culture favors and protects men, even violent predators?

What part of our culture demeans women and is slow to respond to violence against them?

No need for social media, either. This was happening long before the internet existed.

That's really the type of cancelling that I was interested in exploring when I started this thread.

There's gonna be reactive stuff arising, right or wrong. One reactive act was the hospital that fired Dr. Lieberman. Maybe they shouldn't have. But either way, he's fine. He's not ruined. He didn't seem to mind what people said about him when he supported Trump and tried to cancel doctors of actual relevant disciplines who warned about Trump's mental issues and fascist tendencies.

I am fully aware that people, including minorities and women have suffered from prejudice, hate etc. for hundreds of years. I get it,

No, you don't.

but since when do two wrongs make a right?

That's not what's happening.

I'm not a vengeful person. That may be why I have difficulty understanding this crazy condemning of anyone who says something that is't politically correct,

If you think racist comments are simply "not politically correct," then, no, you don't get it.

And vengeance is white supremacists digging up and revitalizing a racist, hate based movement reflecting an old, losing war to protect one of the most vile and depraved of institutions.

You are part of a society and your every choice and attitude toward others reverberates. If I had to choose a group to be unfairly affected by choices and attitudes reverberating through society, amplified by social media, I'd pick affluent white people. Not because they deserve it, but because by and large they can withstand it. Nobody's literally chasing them down and murdering them in the street for their comments, much less for the color of their skin.

which is often done out of simple ignorance, not out of hate or prejudice.

I agree. It's when they're brought to task on it and instead of apologizing and humbling themselves they dig in with defensiveness and excuses and NO intention of learning anything.

And guess what? A lot of minorities don't like being told by white people what they should be insulted by.

Can you show me a white person telling minorities what they should be insulted by? I can show you people who understand the power of words and attitudes reverberating through society and having by orders of magnitude much worse consequences on your fellow human beings than being insulted.

And that is not so much insulting as it is abhorrent and wrong. Do you understand the difference?

Do you understand that not saying certain things is far easier than saying them and potentially contributing to harm done to human beings? Even if I shared your contempt for people who are not like you or not mainstream or do not fit the status quo, I'd still always have that question in my mind of just how certain am I that my words won't contribute to harm done to others? Is the urge to assert my opinion really so important that I would choose to potentially contribute to a culture of racism? No. No, it fucking isn't.

If you're busy whitewashing bigotry and believing racism doesn't exist except in the most extreme and obvious cases, then maybe you deserve to be ruined when you test out that belief.

Nobody, even Black people, needs to tell me that words and attitudes reverberate and potentially contribute to harming others. No one needs to tell me that even just the potential of contributing to those well known streams of bigotry and violence is enough for me to easily choose to simply not say things even if they were my own views. It's a no-brainer.

When I talk about racism, I only talk to white people. White people are the ones who need to be told some things. Black people don't need my words at all, of any kind, opinion, advice, anything, and I don't give them to them. The only thing they need from me is to not contribute to the racist society that punishes them by every means possible, at minimum. At most, they need for me to turn my voice toward other white people, which I do. Black people who speak on racism often ask white people to talk to other white people about how our society and its institutions are fundamentally racist, and to hold other white people accountable, which I do.

It's one thing to defend and be supportive of others when asked or when needed. It's another thing to patronize them by telling them they are victims.

Is that what you do? Because it's not what I do. What I do is challenge other white people to humble themselves and listen to people of color. They have so much that they can teach us. You don't even have to pester any Black person to teach you. You have at your fingertips a whole universe of Black people talking. On Youtube alone, there are bajillions of Black people with channels dedicated to racism and other social issues, some of them specializing in talking to white people.

White people have a hard time humbling themselves. Other human beings are just not worth the effort, I guess. I don't even know how most of the white people I know could even recognize what humility is. Most of us have been raised to believe that humbling yourself equates to humiliation, which is a word we define a little differently, to mean something cruel that someone does to another person or that society does to a person and is not desirable, not something a person does to themselves as an act of self reflection and desire to be more than just an obedient animal walking upright and emitting human words out of their face.

When did it become unacceptable to forgive someone after they apologized for making a dumb mistake?

Meaningless question. It's not unacceptable to forgive someone after they apologized. No one thinks that. It's also not a given that every apology should be met with forgiveness.

 

[Hermit]

@southernhybrid, I do agree with you. The example of cancel culture cited in the OP is an absurd, unjustified reaction to what at worst can be described a result of tone deafness.

This, however, is just silly.

...the spike in crime in the. US...

Crime rates in the US have almost halved in the past 30 years. If there has been an increase in the most recent two and a bit years not shown on the graph, my guess is it can at most be described as a spikelet.

 

[Hermit]

He didn't seem to mind what people said about him when he supported Trump

Did he? All I know is that he was opposed to the publication of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump (St. Martin’s Press, 2017) because, as he put it

Psychiatry’s history is marked by too many missteps in the past to allow itself to be drawn into an exercise of political partisanship, disguised as patriotism, that risks eroding the credibility of our profession. We have infamously been involved, unwittingly or knowingly, in human rights abuses in countries across the world when the definitions of mental disease were manipulated to include political dissidents and civil disobedience. Such instances are too numerous to summarize in this article, but among the most egregious were the collusion of psychiatry in the crimes of eugenics in Nazi Germany and political repression of the Soviet Union. We must be aware that psychiatry possesses a greater capacity for abuse than other medical specialties because it can be exploited to bypass standard legal and governmental procedures for establishing guilt, innocence, or competence and ostensibly legitimizes political action, even incarceration, without the odium ordinarily attached to such political conflicts.

Does that constitute support for Trump?

and tried to cancel doctors of actual relevant disciplines who warned about Trump's mental issues and fascist tendencies.

In the same article Lieberman described the contributors to the book as "unprofessional, unethical, and irresponsible". He went on to say

...their (our) role is not to initiate—that is done through the Constitutional mechanisms—it is to assist in the process as needed. To take clinical potshots and lob diagnostic grenades at the POTUS through the media is not the optimal course of action. To do so is to engage in partisan tabloid psychiatry, which harms our profession. Sadly, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump is not a serious, scholarly, civic-minded work, but simply tawdry, indulgent, fatuous, tabloid psychiatry.

As citizens and psychiatrists, we are entitled to express our opinions of the POTUS as a First Amendment right. However, when we draw on our credentials as physicians to render a clinical diagnosis with insufficient information and under unconducive circumstances as grounds for removal from office, we cross a boundary into an unprofessional, unethical, and perilous realm.

Does that constitute an attempt to cancel doctors of actual relevant disciplines who warned about Trump's mental issues and fascist tendencies?

Admittedly, I have not read much about him, so if you have more information, I'd like to hear it, preferably with links to sources.