Here
and
Now

opinions

Cancel culture: Positive social change or online harassment?

104 Comments
By Thomas URBAIN
JK Rowling was widely criticized for comments she made about transgender people Photo: AFP

Celebrities, brands, leaders and ordinary people are all falling foul of "cancel culture," a movement that seeks to call out offensive behavior but that critics denounce as excessive and contributing to increased political polarization.

Whether it's a controversial tweet or video clip, social media users are quick to demand accountability -- but detractors say it can amount to online shaming.

"Cancel culture" involves a concerted effort to withdraw support for the figure or business that has said or done something objectionable until they either apologize or disappear from view.

Author JK Rowling, for comments deemed deeply insulting to transgender people; YouTuber Shane Dawson, for old videos of him in blackface; and singer Lana Del Rey, for a controversial Instagram post contrasting herself with black artists, have all been caught in the wave.

Brands are also being forced to react so as not to lose customers: for example, Uncle Ben's and Aunt Jemima for their use of African-American mascots widely considered to be racist caricatures that have long been taboo.

Richard Ford, a law professor at California's Stanford University agrees that "some of the social media activism is constructive and legitimate" but also warns of "reflexive campaigns and crusades" online.

"Activism on Twitter is easy: it takes a couple of seconds to attack someone or circulate a petition to have the person fired or ostracized," Ford told AFP.

The academic was one of roughly 150 personalities from the world of arts and sciences to sign a letter published on the Harper's magazine website earlier this month that complained that cancel culture was restricting debate.

However, many view the movement as giving a voice to people who previously didn't have one, allowing them to call out offensive behavior for the first time.

"We're no longer in a cultural moment where people who are treated unfairly can't speak back to regressive and toxic opinions," said University of Michigan professor Lisa Nakamura.

"If a public figure wants to cancel transgender people, there is no reason in the world that they can't be cancelled in return," she added.

"Cancel culture" roared into the mainstream as part of the #MeToo movement in 2017, when many Hollywood A-listers were toppled by a wave of fury over accusations of sexual harassment and abuse with impunity.

Now, the culture is impacting discriminatory behavior in everyday life, researchers say.

Nakamura cites the example of Amy Cooper, a white woman filmed by a black man in Central Park in May when she told police he was threatening her and asked them to arrest him -- for no legitimate reason.

The video, posted on Twitter, has been viewed some 45 million times amid widespread outrage, and Cooper was quickly fired as her company tried to distance itself from the anger.

"'Cancel culture' is what happens when victims of racism and sexism stop keeping their perpetrators' secrets," Nakamura told AFP.

But Keith Hampton, professor of media and information at Michigan State University, says that if the movement is intentionally about trying to harm people, then it's "less positive."

The authors of the Harper's letter warned that the radicalization of "cancel culture" was constricting the "free exchange of information and ideas."

Critics dismissed the letter as powerful people -- several of whom had been cancelled themselves after using their platforms to express controversial or offensive opinions -- complaining of backlash when people disagree with them.

Ford, at Stanford, says social media "encourages provocations and expressions of outrage and is almost completely incapable of conveying nuance."

"Sometimes the goal is simply emotional satisfaction at taking someone down," said Ford.

Hampton, from Michigan State, says "guilt and social shaming don't really change opinions very successfully," adding that that part of the movement is likely to increase the polarization of American society.

Ford says it is President Donald Trump who fueled "cancel culture" by attacking individuals and groups he wanted to discredit -- such as the Black Lives Matter movement.

"Trump's intolerance and bigotry has inspired similar behavior from his followers on the right, and that has in turn provoked a counter-reaction from progressives," said Ford.

"There's increasingly a sort of 'us versus them' attitude where it's seen as justified and even necessary to be just as dogmatic and unyielding as one's ideological enemies."

Nakamura believes the phenomenon can be problematic when it divides a social movement or "targets people inaccurately" but says, ultimately, it's "an important force for change."

"The Black Lives Matter movement would have looked very different were it not for the documentation of everyday racism in Walmarts, on jogging and bike paths, and in other public spaces," she concluded.

© 2020 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.


104 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

"Cancel culture" involves a concerted effort to withdraw support for the figure or business that has said or done something objectionable until they either apologize or disappear from view.

You mean who are Trump supporters.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

since1981Today  09:13 am JST

"Cancel culture" involves a concerted effort to withdraw support for the figure or business that has said or done something objectionable until they either apologize or disappear from view.

You mean who are Trump supporters.

Yes and no. The purity police go after anyone they deem not ideologically pure enough, and in the process eat some of their own alive. Even celebrities who try to out-woke each other aren't safe when a sliver of commonsense slips through, as JK Rowling found out not too long ago.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Cancel culture is the result of the far-left springing up in retaliation to the unbending, non-compassionate far-right extremism. Both extremes do the same thing - express anger at anything whatsoever on the other team and do their ultimate to get it shut down.

The far right doesn’t even realize that the rise of the cancel culture is their fault for being extremists, and they’re clueless that lot only are they the other side of the coin, they’re just as disgusting as the cancel culture they decry.

Extremists are useless to society.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

The purity police go after anyone they deem not ideologically pure enough, and in the process eat some of their own alive. Even celebrities who try to out-woke each other aren't safe when a sliver of commonsense slips through, as JK Rowling found out not too long ago.

Absolutely. What happened to JK Rowling - or at least what the online lynch mob tried to do to her when she expressed (very politely and sympathetically) an opinion on trangenderism that they didn't like - is inexcusable in a society which pretends to itself that it's inclusive and/or progressive.

Now I'm mostly a leftie when it comes to my political and many of my societal opinions, but I admit - the vast majority of cancel culture sins currently come from the left, especially in the areas of gender and identity politics. Such is the poisonous spread of social media, and the spinelessness of supposed authorities such as universities in the face of all this, that it's hard to see things improving.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

This is also about the academy and journalism. If you have the "wrong" point of view, you may find yourself fired and employable in the future. This is not about the big names on the letter but the people who can't risk signing such a thing. Well-known professors like John Mcwhorter can get away with criticizing BLM but many lesser-known people cannot. When something is beyond critique, then it becomes a sort of propaganda. Of course this is not black and white and there are obviously some things that are out of bounds, out and out racism, antisemitism, pedophilia, etc. But those should be the exceptions that prove the free-inquiry rule.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Since1981

You mean who are Trump supporters.

Not necessarily. JK Rowlings, as mentioned in the article, is an example where the cancel mob goes after one of its own. Bari Weiss is another.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Strangerland

Cancel culture is the result of the far-left springing up in retaliation to the unbending, non-compassionate far-right extremism. Both extremes do the same thing - express anger at anything whatsoever on the other team and do their ultimate to get it shut down.

No they do not. The fascist knee-jerk reflex of silencing those you disagree with is a monopoly of the currect "left". I have yet to see conservative lynch mobs trying to shut down "left" speakers the way the woke crowd does. If you have examples to the contrary, would be curious to see them.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Big Yen

Now I'm mostly a leftie when it comes to my political and many of my societal opinions, but I admit - the vast majority of cancel culture sins currently come from the left, 

"Vast majority" or hundred percent?

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

"Vast majority" or hundred percent?

Vast majority.

You're exhibiting another undesirable manifestation of contemporary culture, the "either you're 100% with us or you're against us" attitude.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

No they do not. The fascist knee-jerk reflex of silencing those you disagree with is a monopoly of the currect "left". 

Thats almost word for word what cancel culture far leftists say about the right.

Because they’re both equally useless groups of people to humanity who just make a lot of noise, while making humanity a lesser group overall.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The term cancel culture in its self sounds as stupid as the concept. It was brought about by people that need a safe space to escape from the reality and truths of the real world. Simply put, they believe everyone should have the freedom to express themselves and not be silenced UNLESS it somehow does not go along with their opinions and beliefs.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

constricting the "free exchange of information and ideas."

Interesting.

I wonder if JK Rowling et al really believe that transfolks haven't ever heard the argument that hey aren't the gender they say they are, and should therefore listen to her for a "free exchange of information and ideas".

No. I find it hard to believe that these people honestly think that they are engaging in a "free exchange of information and ideas" when they make these arguments. I think their true purpose is to demean and ostracize transpeople from society. So who exactly is trying to "cancel" whom?

'us versus them' attitude where it's seen as justified and even necessary to be just as dogmatic and unyielding as one's ideological enemies."

When someone tells me that my sexuality is abnormal and that I should not have the right to get married, and I fire back saying that my sexuality is perfectly normal and that I should be able to get married, I am being unjustifiably dogmatic and that is just as bad?

Yeah, no. Bigotry, racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia - these are not arguable concepts that should be mulled over and discussed with serious consideration. If you hold the opinion that someone is less deserving of human rights than you are, then you have already lost the argument.

There is no tolerance for intolerance.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

I reckon some of this is troll farms operated by Russia. Russia's stated aim is to further division in the West. Anything that makes people fight each other benefits them.

Yes, attitudes are changing like they always have, and yes, some people can't or don't want to keep up, but this does not naturally cause the kind of divisiveness we are seeing now. This is being driven principally by social media. It has been reported many times, but social media will spread whatever message the highest bidder wants. It has been factually proven that it did in the 2016 US Election, in the Brexit referendum, in national elections in various other countries, and is still doing it to this day. It would be very simple to set up a troll farm to push radical opinions with the sole purpose of feeding a backlash against a chosen minority. All you need to do to turn Japanese people against British people like myself would be send out a few fake tweets about British people insisting on wearing shoes indoors or defacing a cultural property in Japan. Propaganda works even on educated people.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@kohaku

No need for fake tweets. Genuine footage of a Saturday night in Blackpool, Walsall or Swindon should be enough to turn decent folk against the Brits (well, the English....)

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Big Yen

Vast majority.

You're exhibiting another undesirable manifestation of contemporary culture, the "either you're 100% with us or you're against us" attitude.

No, I am just looking at reality. Can you give an example of a conservative cancel mob trying to silence someone? I have not seen that yet.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

lucabrasi

Why do you think I left!

Can you give an example of a conservative cancel mob trying to silence someone? I have not seen that yet.

Err, that America Footballer who exercised his all-American freedom to kneel during the national anthem. He was kicked out of the sport altogether. He's second top of any "cancelled" chart. Top of the chart is any woman or medical staff killed in anti-abortion violence. I call murders, bombs, and arson "terrorism" myself.

41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

9 ( +9 / -0 )

No, I am just looking at reality. Can you give an example of a conservative cancel mob trying to silence someone? I have not seen that yet.

Trump is talking about throwing people in jail for burning a flag as a form of protest. He has plenty of supporters for this authoritarian crap.

That’s silencing people.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Jimizo

Trump is talking about throwing people in jail for burning a flag as a form of protest. He has plenty of supporters for this authoritarian crap. That’s silencing people.

No, it is not. Trump talks a lot, but he is certainly not "silencing people"; just look at yourself and all the other Trump haters here. You are definitely not "silenced".

I was asking for a real-world example of a cancel mob that shuts down lecture, doxxes people, and demands "de-platforming", the way the leftist cancel mobs do it regularly. As I said, I have not seen anything like that.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

kohakeebisu

Err, that America Footballer who exercised his all-American freedom to kneel during the national anthem. He was kicked out of the sport altogether. He's second top of any "cancelled" chart. Top of the chart is any woman or medical staff killed in anti-abortion violence. I call murders, bombs, and arson "terrorism" myself.

I do not see how any of that is comparable to the leftist cancel mobs who want to silence people simply for wrongspeak. I notice you are fumbling, trying to come up with something comparable. I don´t think it exists.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Trump is talking about throwing people in jail for burning a flag as a form of protest. He has plenty of supporters for this authoritarian crap. That’s silencing people.

No, it is not. Trump talks a lot, but he is certainly not "silencing people"; just look at yourself and all the other Trump haters here. You are definitely not "silenced".

I was asking for a real-world example of a cancel mob that shuts down lecture, doxxes people, and demands "de-platforming", the way the leftist cancel mobs do it regularly. As I said, I have not seen anything like that.

Authoritarian ideas concern me and the cancel culture flirts with this. I agree with you on the woke crap which doesn’t want to hear an opposing point.

I honestly find the president of the US talking about throwing people in jail for burning flags far more concerning than purple-haired woke idiots. I have similar feelings to kohakuebisu about people who want sports players thrown out of their teams for political views. This is punishing ‘thoughtcrime’

You seem to be dodging this by looking for exact equivalents rather than dealing with the main issue of punishing thought.

I hope you wouldn’t support authoritarian garbage like punishing people for what they think.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

No, I am just looking at reality. Can you give an example of a conservative cancel mob trying to silence someone? I have not seen that yet.

You just want the one example? Well, I guess the Dixie Chicks might consider themselves shut-down, shut-out, deplatformed, marginalized, deprived of a living, death-threatened, banned from radio, and the rest of it. All for one statement saying they didn't agree with George W. Bush's Iraq war and that they were ashamed that Bush Jr came from their State. That controversy is one the band is just emerging from now.

Was it a cancel mob that forced the Chicks out of business for the best part of 14 years? You betcha, Was it a conservative cancel mob? Of course it was. Take "majority" and be satisfied with it, watch your own side for signs of cancel culture, and be prepared to call it out when you see it. If you can.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

JimizoToday 07:55 pm JST

Authoritarian ideas concern me and the cancel culture flirts with this. I agree with you on the woke crap which doesn’t want to hear an opposing point.

It's so weird when people say this. I just don't quite understand why people claim that progressives are "authoritarian" and "don't want to hear an opposing view".

Do you really think that the people these arguments are aimed at have never heard them before?

Do you really think everyone who just happens to have an opinion about an issue deserves to have their opinion seriously considered by the people affected by that issue?

Who is "authoritarian" - those who are advocating for laws that restrict freedom, or those who are pleading to keep their freedom?

Case in point: When Rowling made her blog post, trans activists sighed a collective sigh, because Rowling didn't say anything that was new or that hadn't been debunked/countered/argued against/slapped down before. It also wasn't the first time Rowling had made those arguments, and it wasn't the first time she was called out - and it won't be the last, because Rowling has not been "cancelled". She is still writing, making movies, and is active on Twitter. The biggest difference this is going to make in her life is that she will lose some of her fans - but that is her own fault for espousing hateful views against those fans. Finally, the people who are advocating for new laws that would restricts the freedom of transpeople and discriminates against them are the ones who are being authoritarian.

All transpeople want is to be left alone to live their lives just like everyone else. How can that be labeled "authoritarian?"

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

No, it is not. Trump talks a lot, but he is certainly not "silencing people";

You should try getting out of your echo chamber. Trump regularly uses the law to silence people, and his supporters - the extreme/alt right, fully support it.

It's right-wing cancel culture.

The other side of the extreme leftists coin.

Both groups entirely useless to humanity. They're dragging us down.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

strangerland

You should try getting out of your echo chamber. Trump regularly uses the law to silence people, and his supporters - the extreme/alt right, fully support it.

How does he use the law to silence people? Any examples for that? You just make claims and dont back them up.

And in the theoretical case that he did, that would be authoritarian overreach, and not cancel culture. When people talk about cancel culture, we mean the mob that wants to cancel events, get people booted of social media, doxxed, kicked out of their jobs etc etc. And that is something that I only see from the current "left" (which I dont consider left at all).

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Big Yen

You just want the one example? Well, I guess the Dixie Chicks might consider themselves shut-down, shut-out, deplatformed, marginalized, deprived of a living, death-threatened, banned from radio, and the rest of it. All for one statement saying they didn't agree with George W. Bush's Iraq war and that they were ashamed that Bush Jr came from their State. That controversy is one the band is just emerging from now.

The only time I heard of these "Dixie Chicks" was when I read that recently they changed their name because "Dixie" was considered racist by the leftist cancel mob. Until then, they obviously had been around. Try again?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

How does he use the law to silence people? Any examples for that?

Let's start with throwing Cohen in jail for trying to publish a book, just last week.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And in the theoretical case that he did, that would be authoritarian overreach, and not cancel culture.

The right-wing extremists who vehemently support him are the right-wing cancel culture.

As I keep saying, the other side of the coin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We turned an incredible invention into a sewer full of crap. Just go to YouTube home page at see all of the lies, treachery and false videos, fake stories, manipulated photos, eccentric narcissists and childish nonsense.

The Internet, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram are the engines of decline of human intelligence and values.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The "cancel culture" retaliation by the Trump administration can be found meanness in the cuts to unemployment benefits to the working poor, who they believe are "making too much money."

If they starve the working poor, many of whom are brown and black, they'll strangle the life out of their voices.

And they believe that they will vote Democratic, so they have to make them homeless so they can't vote.

60% of all restaurants and bars in the US have shut down forever and many of those open can only serve at 50% capacity (Uh, 50% less employees) and business is way down. 40% of all retail stores have closed permanently,

Republican/Trump politicians, such as Cruz from Texas said the restaurant workers don't "deserve" $600 per week unemployment and it is keeping them from going back to work.

Going back to work where? This is the con game they're playing.

The economics is that they are the people most likely to spend the unemployment cash which is keeping consumer economy from being even worse. Spending the money on rent, food, car payments, utilities, car insurance, etc. is what is keeping he economy from collapsing even further@#%!

The money gets returned to economy.

When the benefits are cut, they still won't have jobs to go to, won't have money for rent, utilities, car payments, etc, and nothing to spend on the economy.

People have paid federal taxes for decades and gotten nothing from it. Nothing at all. Now they need it, and the Trump Republicans think that it's their money and not the people's money!

Defund the Congress for a few years. Let's see how they like it.

No government workers are laid off. They sit around at home collecting their salaries and special retirement. Government workers are the only people in American not required to pay into Social Security. It's now Government workers against the public like in the Soviet Union. Over 50% of households in the US derive income from working for, contracting with or supplying goods or services to local, state and federal governments.

Defund Congress. Trump is defunding the working poor, who are no better than working slaves, in a tactic to starve out tens of millions of working poor so they can't even get to a voting booth in November.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

 JK Rowling - or at least what the online lynch mob tried to do to her when she expressed (very politely and sympathetically) an opinion on trangenderism that they didn't like 

No, this is not true. She was not polite and sympathetic.

Also, using the term 'lynch mob' is a hysterical choice of words.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

 She was not polite and sympathetic.

How true. Anyone who fails to be constantly polite and sympathetic toward me and my personal views must be purged. Re-education/labor camps arent out of the question for the unsympathic, either.

 Trump is defunding the working poor...

Well, he and Congress have approved and continue to prepare the largest amount of fiscal stimulus for working people in recorded history.

"the working poor" is the product of globalization and free trade, which Trump is mostly opposed to. Those policies have been pushed by people on both sides, but mostly by the centrists and the moderate left and right. It's their baby!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Zaphod:

The only time I heard of these "Dixie Chicks" was when I read that recently they changed their name because "Dixie" was considered racist by the leftist cancel mob. Until then, they obviously had been around. Try again?

Very nicely proving my point about absolutism. You never heard of them before a moment in time that suits you, therefore it doesn't exist. Try again? No, I've given you the example that proves your attempts to make this a 100% loeft-wing issue redundant. You try again. Try reading up on it. Would that be beyond you?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Maria:

JK Rowling, being polite and sympathetic while offering a different view to the new orthodoxy:

I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth,” she tweeted. “The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women—i.e., to male violence—‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences—is a nonsense." “I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so.”

Link to a compilation of screenshots of the more hysterical, lynch mob reactions against Ms Rowling is below. I won't quote it, I'll just summarise it by saying it contains a lot of words and sentiments that the Moderators would cut out if I printed them.

https://medium.com/@rebeccarc/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-activists-a-story-in-screenshots-78e01dca68d

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"No, I am just looking at reality. Can you give an example of a conservative cancel mob trying to silence someone? I have not seen that yet."

Well, how about the Hollywood Blacklist? Lots of actors, screenwriters, directors, producers and musicians were denied work for supposed affiliations with communism, in particular the "Waldorf Statement" regarding the "Hollywood Ten" after their testimony to Congress. The group "Turning Point USA" has a website called "Professor Watchlist" where students can report professors for "leftist propaganda" in the classroom. See the link below.

https://www.professorwatchlist.org/

How about Col Alexander Vindman? How about Colin Kaepernick? How about Sinead O'connor? Good grief I can remember the outrage at so many rock bands in the late 1960s and 1970s not the least of which was the Beetles for proclaiming they would be "bigger than Jesus".

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"The only time I heard of these "Dixie Chicks" was when I read that recently they changed their name because "Dixie" was considered racist by the leftist cancel mob. Until then, they obviously had been around. "

I reckon you don't remember them clashing with the George W. Bush administration when in 2003 they criticized the then planned invasion of Iraq. The Dixie Chicks were blacklisted by thousands of country western radio stations across the US, which obviously cost them much lost royalty income. Radio station KKCS suspended two of their DJs for playing their music.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"Let's start with throwing Cohen in jail for trying to publish a book, just last week"

Were it not for Covid-19 Mr. Cohen would not be out of prison on home confinement. He belongs in prison for his crimes. The fellow is a crook and has been a crook for a very long time. Now he pays. But, whether he's in jail or on home confinement the Department of (cough cough) Justice has no right to stop him from expressing his views or stopping him from publishing a book.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JeffLee, globalization was the invention of the leaders of the free world during the latter days of WWII. They convened in the US to discuss what the post war world should look like so there would not be a repeat of the conditions that led to that horrible war. These were not traitors or our enemies. They made their best and an honest attempt to tie the world together through mutually beneficial trade as a way to unify people and nations around the world. A World Bank was created to try to prevent the sorts of beggar thy neighbor trade policies used in particular by the US before WWII which was partially responsible for creating the economic conditions that allowed the Hitlers and Mussolinis of their time to rise up and gain power. They established a UN as a means to settle disputes without, hopefully, resort to war. In time a European Common Market was established to tie European nations together economically as a way to prevent the accumulation of petty disputes that led to one war after another in Europe over the previous thousand years.

It worked pretty well for the most part. It was abused, yes, but the system is not beyond repair. Far from it. It has allowed nations all around the world to rise up out of poverty and this has prevented wars. People with jobs, a reasonable standard of living and a vote typically don't fight wars against each other. It was seen as a way to alleviate the hopelessness that led people to follow tyrants into hopeless and tragic wars. It wasn't all a grand plot to steal your money or make your life more miserable.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Try reading up on it. Would that be beyond you?"

I suspect he was either not yet born or not yet old enough to read when the Dixie Chicks had their first experience with right wing cancel culture.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Were it not for Covid-19 Mr. Cohen would not be out of prison on home confinement.

Which is irrelevant to the point I was making. Covid DID happen, and Cohen WAS let out. Then Trump tried to lock in up to prevent him from publishing a tell-all. Just because Trump couldn't have done that if covid hadn't come, doesn't change the fact that covid did come, and Trump did do this.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I reckon you don't remember them clashing with the George W. Bush administration when in 2003 they criticized the then planned invasion of Iraq. The Dixie Chicks were blacklisted by thousands of country western radio stations across the US, which obviously cost them much lost royalty income. Radio station KKCS suspended two of their DJs for playing their music.

Right-wing cancel-culture.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I do not see how any of that is comparable to the leftist cancel mobs who want to silence people simply for wrongspeak.

Because in the eye of the write, Kaepernick performed "wrongpseak" and the right wing "mob" freaked out and had him "slienced".

Just because you don't want to admit that the far-left cancel culture is simply the counter-balance to the far-right cancel culture, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means you've been getting all your news from news biased in one direction, and only hear your right-wing echo chamber.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Jeff Lee Today 06:06 am JST.

How true. Anyone who fails to be constantly polite and sympathetic toward me and my personal views must be purged. Re-education/labor camps arent out of the question for the unsympathic, either.

BigYen

hysterical, lynch mob reactions against Ms Rowling

It seems you both have read what Rowling wrote about transpeople, yet you still think the reaction from trans activists is "hysterical". And you seem to think that transpeople are obligated to seriously consider the ill-informed and ignorant opinions of random people on the internet instead of those of experts and their own lived experience.

Rowling basically repeated every single false trope that has been used against transpeople time and time again to demean them and reject their identities, and in so doing she also advocated for discriminating against them in social services as well as public life. Considering that, the reaction against her was far from "hysterical". It was balanced and well-deserved.

Simply put, Rowling lost a lot of fans due to her bigotry, and if that in turn means she looses out on any book or film deals, then that is entirely her own doing. You make your bed, you lie in it - if you act out a bigot then you can hardly cry that you yourself are somehow being discriminated against.

In humanism, there simply is no tolerance for intolerance.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

In humanism, there simply is no tolerance for intolerance.

So there is no path to redemption for anyone that screws up? Once a sinner, always a sinner?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

StrangerlandToday 07:12 am JST

So there is no path to redemption for anyone that screws up? Once a sinner, always a sinner?

I'm not sure why you'd say this, since that is not inherent to anything I've said here.

But to answer your question, people can and do evolve, change, and make amends.

As an example, Tim Hardaway (basketball player) once said "I hate gay people. I'm homophobic." He later apologized, and made it be known that he accepted that his comments caused him to lose a lot of fans. Gay activists, such as George Takei, who had spoken out against him publicly, thanked him for his apology.

I think there are still plenty of people who are still angry, as the damage done by such remarks is very difficult to undo. However, the way he has comported himself since then has gone a very long way towards redeeming him, and I think most people have largely forgotten what happened.

If - and I mean IF - Rowling backs down, apologizes, and tries to make amends, most people will eventually forgive her and forget this happened.

However, I doubt very much that she will suddenly change her mind, since she has espoused these views for quite a while despite the backlash. And even if she did suddenly evolve, a lot of people she hurt may not find it within themselves to forgive her, as such commentary cuts very very deep. But as it was entirely of her own doing, she can't blame them for that.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

girl_in_tokyoToday 07:48 am JST

It seems you both have read what Rowling wrote about transpeople, yet you still think the reaction from trans activists is "hysterical".

Have you read my post in response to Maria, quoting Rowling and providing a link to the vicious, misogynistic social media response from trans activists and their sympathisers to Ms. Rowling's opinions?

I'll provide it again:

https://medium.com/@rebeccarc/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-activists-a-story-in-screenshots-78e01dca68d

And you seriously think this kind of response is reasonable?

And that the quote from JK Rowling, also provided, shows her to be someone basically repeating "every single false trope that has been used against transpeople time and time again to demean them and reject their identities, and in so doing she also advocated for discriminating against them in social services as well as public life"?

You're obviously having difficulty with the notion that a differing opinion - in this case as to whether trans people are exactly the same, no difference at all, as the gender with which they choose to identify - can genuinely be a held as a legitimate opinion which doesn't deny the rights of trans people to live exactly as they want without discrimination in employment or society. I have no problem with, say, a male to female transperson who chooses to identify as a woman. It would be polite and positive to address them as such, and to treat them as such. And I would expect trans people to be treated exactly the same in employment and any other area, and for there to be legislation which protects them in that regard. But if they, or you, or anyone else, then goes that giant step further and expects me to accept and believe as a matter of objective truth and logic that they are exactly the same as a person born a woman, you must be kidding. It would require the loss of more than a few brain cells for me to believe that.

It's not just TERFs (and what a horrible, demeaning, discriminatory, cancel culture phrase that is) who object to this particular push. For example, female athletes all over the world are pushing back against the inclusion of trans women in their sports, because the bottom line is that even after a year of testosterone suppression, those once-male athletes can still outperform them. Once you've been through puberty and had all that testosterone flowing through your system, you never lose the advantages it gives you in strength and speed. So in order for this level playing field delusion to be perpetuated, women who were born women are condemned to a career of always being second-best, because trans women will always be different.

In humanism, there simply is no tolerance for intolerance.

One thing tolerance isn't, is trying to force others through social pressure to bow down to what those others believe to be illogical demands and mass delusion. And on this issue, that's a sin that's being committed by trans activists and their sympathizers. Not by JK Rowling.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

If - and I mean IF - Rowling backs down, apologizes, and tries to make amends, most people will eventually forgive her and forget this happened.

The thing is that Rowling is already so successful that she can't be cancelled, and she knows there is no reason for her to back down, let alone apologize. She's giving voice to those less successful people who cannot afford to risk their livelihood.

And why not? I've read what she wrote, and wholly support her line of thinking. Women are women and trans women are trans women. This is not a "transphobic" statement. Why should people be fired and/or doxed just for stating the bleeding obvious? How is this wrong?

This is just one of many examples that show the perils of cancel culture.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"So there is no path to redemption for anyone that screws up? Once a sinner, always a sinner?"

My father hated, and I do mean hated, Sweden and would never consent to allowing anything made in Sweden into our home or garage. My lust for a Saab 99 would never be fulfilled, lol. His reason? During WWII he was a machinist at American Brass. They needed a set of specialty bearings for an overhead crane that were made by Timken. Timken sold the bearings to the Germans instead, causing a big disruption in the brass mills production and my father's hatred was forever sealed. He would never forgive any perceived slight. Just how he was. He was born in 1916 so apparently what is now called cancel culture is nothing new.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Of course this is not black and white and there are obviously some things that are out of bounds, out and out racism, antisemitism, pedophilia, etc. But those should be the exceptions that prove the free-inquiry rule.

That my be the root of the entire cancel culture problem. As actual support for and actions related to the above things decreased, people got bored and decided to greatly expand the definitions of what they consider to be antisemitism, racism and pedophilia. If you criticize Israeli foreign policy, BAM you are an anti-semite! If you criticize BLM for excluding white people (and they do) BAM you are a racist! If you think there is no need to raise the age of marriage from 16 to 18 BAM you are a pedophile!

The dam on common sense has broken and now people will start screaming that the opposition is guilty of the first heinous thing that comes to mind with zero thought about other possible or even more likely motives. And its all because there are things we are simply not allowed to talk about.... as if talk were as dangerous as literal explosives. If we cannot talk about a thing then I can guarantee it festers. And it has festered to the point that now people either cannot listen or lost the ability and now seek to just boycott when their little brains fail to engage.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Cancel culture: Positive social change or...

No. It's damaging to the country. Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

See how the far right are trying to cancel the opinions of posters right in this very thread?

Extrmeists: entirely useless humans.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

and I fire back saying that my sexuality is perfectly normal

"Perfectly normal" is definitely the wrong word choice and a sub-root of the problem. Whatever your sexuality, it is 95 percent likely to NOT be an actual problem for society or anyone around you, and THAT is the only point that matters.

Particularly this drive to push the idea that "LGBTQ is all normal" has caused a backlash. In some senses of the word "normal" it is, such as historical commonality. But in the usual senses of the word "normal" it isn't, particularly if you are considering the rather small percentage of LGBTQ people. Its rather hard to convince everyone that 2 to 5 percent of the population with a particular sexuality/ identity are normal. It would be far more easy to convince them that those people are not an issue for anyone to be concerned about. A whole lot of people just need to get used to the idea that they are NOT "perfectly normal". A whole bunch more people need to get used to the idea that variety is the spice of life and as with mere words, LGBTQ people do not explode either so deal with it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

A whole lot of people just need to get used to the idea that they are NOT "perfectly normal". A whole bunch more people need to get used to the idea that variety is the spice of life and as with mere words, LGBTQ people do not explode either so deal with it.

I think the problem is less the need to get used to, and more the need for less extremist domination of the conversation. If the extremists weren't so trigger happy, maybe other people would find things easier to get used to.

Example: I'm a moderate (grumpy) liberal in general, but when people tell me a trans woman is the same as a woman, I balk. Suddenly I'm treated by people who I generally sympathize with as worse than a war-criminal.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

... my father's hatred was forever sealed. He would never forgive any perceived slight. Just how he was.

Gee. You Tortoises have long memories. :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One thing tolerance isn't, is trying to force others through social pressure to bow down to what those others believe to be illogical demands and mass delusion. 

Spot on.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

BigYen Today 09:02 am JST

Have you read my post in response to Maria, quoting Rowling and providing a link to the vicious, misogynistic social media response from trans activists and their sympathisers to Ms. Rowling's opinions?

You're obviously having difficulty with the notion that a differing opinion - in this case as to whether trans people are exactly the same, no difference at all, as the gender with which they choose to identify

Yes, I read it, and I've read Rowling's blog posts. What I think you may be having trouble understanding is that transpeople have zero obligation to seriously consider the ignorant opinions of strangers who are uninformed on trans issues. Likewise, they are not obligated to hear out someone whose opinions stem from prejudice and are based on bigotry.

It's not just TERFs (and what a horrible, demeaning, discriminatory, cancel culture phrase that is)

See above. TERFs are bigots.

For example, female athletes all over the world are pushing back against the inclusion of trans women in their sports, because the bottom line is that even after a year of testosterone suppression, those once-male athletes can still outperform them.

Rowling wasn't talking about issues in athletics in her post. She was advocating for laws that would ban transwomen from public spaces where they have been going about their business unnoticed for years.

It wasn't until a few years ago when trans visibility increased that certain people suddenly got up in arms about transpeople using the restroom, locker room, or accessing social services for abused women. Transpeople peed next to us for many years without anyone even noticing, yet suddenly there are people like Rowling who want to enact discriminatory laws.

What happened? What changed? Nothing - once transpeople began to gain some visibility and stopped being terrified of being open about their identity, those who retained prejudices against them started making noise in an attempt to stop transpeople from gaining societal acceptance.

The same exact thing happened with gay, lesbian and bisexual people when we first began to strongly advocate for marriage rights. This sudden backlash against transpeople using the bathroom and such is just more of the same.

I should point out here that we won marriage rights in the end, and I have little doubt that Rowling and her ilk will fail in this attack on transpeople as well. Like acceptance of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, it will just take some time.

One thing tolerance isn't, is trying to force others through social pressure to bow down to what those others believe to be illogical demands and mass delusion.

Again, this isn't your call to make. As I said, transpeople have no obligation whatsoever to consider the opinions of people who are strangers to trans issues, and are not psychologists or psychiatrists, especially when those opinions are not based on medically accurate facts or personal experience with gender dysphoria.

Authoritarians are those who try to retard progress with propaganda based on prejudice and ignorance and attempt to enact laws that suppress people's rights - not those who fight AGAINST ignorance and fight FOR rights.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

sourpuss

Why should people be fired and/or doxed just for stating the bleeding obvious? How is this wrong?

I don't think people should be doxxed, ever. That is wrong no matter what the case is, since it can lead to extremely dangerous outcomes like harassment, stalking, assault, and even murder.

However, if someone gets fired for openly, publicly, and loudly proclaiming bigoted opinions, being fired is not an unreasonable consequence for that behavior.

For one thing, companies very often resort to firing employees who cannot be trusted not to create a hostile work environment, or who vociferously declare that they cannot get along with their co-workers.

Employers also have to maintain a good public image, and that means firing employees whose public behavior creates an image that the employer does not want to be associated with. That includes people who express prejudice and bigotry, such as white supremacy, misogyny, or yes - transphobia.

People are perfectly free to say and think and believe what they want in private, but public speech has consequences.

You can take a pee outside in your own backyard, but it you take a piss in public you can pretty much expect your boss not to like it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

transpeople have zero obligation to seriously consider the ignorant opinions of strangers who are uninformed on trans issues. Likewise, they are not obligated to hear out someone whose opinions stem from prejudice and are based on bigotry.

Then there is no conversation, no learning and no possibility of change of heart or forgiveness or moving forward.

Employers also have to maintain a good public image, and that means firing employees whose public behavior creates an image that the employer does not want to be associated with.

Then there is no conversation, no learning and no possibility of change of heart or forgiveness or moving forward.

Cancel culture is the seed of a type of authoritarianism. It becomes and it HAS become, a reflexive action done for the amusement of destroying and terrorizing people and ruling through fear. Whatever long-term lofty goals it may claim or have claimed, all it is now is the short-term pleasure of tearing people down and any long term goal is simply control through force and terror.

I know well that people get tired of taking the high road, of thinking, of waiting for the long term solutions to finally pay off. But cancel culture is base self-indulgence that threatens to take everything back to square one.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@girl_in_tokyo

You present yourself as quite the authority on these issues.

As a keen follower of sports, what is your view on trans athletes competing in women’s sports? Some women regard it as unfair. Martina Navratilova for one was hauled over the coals for expressing her view that it’s unfair. I heard the opinion of one ex-MMA fighter that trans athletes competing in women’s fights could be actually life-threatening given the physical advantages.

Would it be acceptable to put forward the view that trans athletes should be treated differently in this area or would that be bigotry?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

if someone gets fired for openly, publicly, and loudly proclaiming bigoted opinions

Saying women are women and trans women are trans women is not bigoted speech, rather, it's very unbigoted. And making people believe that they are one and the same is not only forcing people to lie, it also breeds anti-trans sentiment.

We know that cis-gendered people are different from trans-gendered people because that's what we're told day-in day-out. Now when you tell us that they are the same, and not believing so is bigoted, that's when the red flags come out.

Trans-gendered people just wanting to be left alone is another trope, because no they don't. They want to be included in the sphere of cis-gendered women, despite the fact that we have been lectured on the fact that trans and cis are things (obviously different things at that) and we have to realize and accept this. They are different, but they are the same...

None of this strikes you convoluted gobbledy-gook / newspeak? Look, trans activists are telling us how to think and how to speak, and yet even they can't create one cohesive message because reality is filled with contradictory facts and no matter how hard you try to blame everyone else, these contradictory facts will not reconcile themselves. Cis women are cis women. Trans women are trans women. One is not the other, and there are demonstrable differences, the easiest of which to identify is their cis vs trans natures. And saying this is doing nothing but asserting the truth. It is not bigotry, and one should not be fired for saying so.

Rowling doesn't think trans women are the same as her and doesn't think they can have the same experiences as her as a woman. And she says this becuase??? Because trans activists tell her no, they do have the same experience as a woman and she should shut up and deal with it. And oh, they're so tired of having to tell people to shut up and deal.

Who is the real bigot?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Vanessa CarlisleToday  11:44 am JS

Then there is no conversation, no learning and no possibility of change of heart or forgiveness or moving forward.

These people don’t want an exchange of ideas. They want transpeople to either go back into the closet, pretend to be cis, or to disengage from public life.

That’s not even close to being reasonable.

Medical professionals (e.g., the APA) trans activists, and trans allies have been attempting to educate the public for many years. It’s beginning to work, as we’ve seen progress in acceptance. But there remains a subsection of the population who simply reject that education and hold tightly to ignorance and prejudice.

You can’t educate people who don’t want to be educated.

Then there is no conversation, no learning and no possibility of change of heart or forgiveness or moving forward.

Those who have had a true change of heart, as Tim Hardaway did, (see my other post) are generally forgiven and their comments are forgotten as time goes by. Note that it does take time. Bigotry does such deep harm that it’s inevitable that it also takes time to heal such a rift.

Cancel culture is the seed of a type of authoritarianism. It becomes and it HAS become, a reflexive action done for the amusement of destroying and terrorizing people and ruling through fear.

Let’s look at that statement carefully.

JK Rowling fears loosing fans and thus popularity and income.

Transpeople fear being beaten up and murdered.

JK Rowling fears her work will be out shadowed by her comments.

Transpeople fear going to the bathroom because someone might physically attack or humiliate them.

JK Rowling fears loosing her celebrity and being forgotten over time.

Trans people fear being fired for being trans, and becoming homeless as a result.

JK Rowling fears her views being attacked, and being called a bigot.

Trans people fear being belittled, purposely misgendered, and demeaned for being trans, and having people laughing and pointing at them in public.

JK Rowling fears not getting any more book contracts or movie deals.

Transpeople fear dying of treatable illnesses because they can’t get medical care, due to religious groups advocating for the government making it legal for hospitals to refuse to treat them on religious grounds.

Now, tell me again who is terrorizing whom.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Jimizo Today  11:56 am JST

You present yourself as quite the authority on these issues. As a keen follower of sports, what is your view on trans athletes competing in women’s sports?

I’m a trans ally who understands trans issues because I have trans friends and listen to them.

But I’m not a sports fan, professional sportsman or sports medical professional. I also haven’t really read up on the topic or discussed it with any trans people.

Sorry, but I just don’t really have the information or expertise necessary form an informed opinion.

(When you don’t have experience or knowledge about an issue the best thing you can do is say “I don’t know”)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

When you don’t have experience or knowledge about an issue the best thing you can do is say “I don’t know”)

True. That’s why I cited a tennis legend who knows more about tennis than most and an ex-MMA fighter who knows more about fighting than most.

Navratilova was hammered for expressing her opinion about something she knows a hell of a lot about having played tennis at the very highest level for decades against men and women. I know you aren’t into sports, but would you at least agree that she should be allowed to express her informed opinion on this without being labeled a bigot?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

girl_in_tokyo:

Your posts are fascinating to read. Doesn't matter how sympathetic people are to trans, doesn't matter how polite they are, how much they support the rights of trans people, if they won't take that extra step and bow down to the "trans women are real women" argument, every other thing they say is disregarded, insulted and deemed irrelevant. That is precisely what cancel culture is - the cancelling out of other people's opinions because they fail to match your ideological purity.

You conflate the politely expressed, generally sympathetic opinions of a liberal like JK Rowling with some of the worst anti-trans, anti-gay sentiments as though they were all the same. You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between Rowling's soft-liberal opinions on this issue and some fire and brimstone fundamentalist preacher baying for the blood of gays, lesbians and adulterers. All these fears you mention - being beaten up and murdered, etcetera - how do statements like Rowling's (or mine, or anyone else arguing with you here) encourage that? Who here has suggested or supported the idea that trans people should be fired from their jobs, or forced back into the darkness? We say out loud, we write in our posts, that we support all the equalities for trans people that you do, but you just choose to ignore all that and pronounce judgement from up on high that our opinions not only aren't good enough, but also that they encourage violence against trans people. Like any ideologue aggressively pushing a blinkered point of view, you are exaggerating. Simply expressing the views that Rowling has, or that some of us have here, will not lead to those horror outcomes you mention.

TERFs are bigots.

Do you speak for all women? Bi, lesbian, straight, however it is you identify? TERFs are not bigots, they're women, often lesbian/other, who don't agree with you for multiple reasons of their own. To describe them as TERFs and to dismiss them as bigots is, once again, to try to dismiss and cancel their opinion because it doesn't agree with yours.

Again, this isn't your call to make.

Comments about tolerance and how it's defined are as much my call to make as they are yours. You are literally, with this sentence, trying to shut me down. Literally. But then I have no obligation to consider the opinions of people who are trying as hard as they can to have everyone say that trans is female just as natural-born females are female, just because they desperately want it to be so. I do not have to accept, even less do I have to keep quiet, about something that I not only do not believe to be true but which I also believe is bereft of reason.

I should point out here that we won marriage rights in the end, and I have little doubt that Rowling and her ilk will fail in this attack on transpeople as well.

Yes, and I supported those rights here in Australia when the issue was polled by our government prior to the granting of equal marriage rights. I don't expect a fanfare. Rowling and her ilk, good lord...

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Trans people fear being fired for being trans, and becoming homeless as a result.

Why? It's illegal.

JK Rowling fears her views being attacked, and being called a bigot.

Obviously false. Why would she keep tweeting despite being called a bigot pretty much every single time?

JK Rowling fears loosing fans and thus popularity and income.

Again, wrong. She has so much money and so many fans, losing some means nothing. And again, if you were right, she would stop tweeting. She's standing up for those who really DO have something to lose.

JK Rowling fears her work will be out shadowed by her comments.

Obviously not. See above. Your misreading of pretty much everything Rowling has said and done is, well, illuminating.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Big Yen

girl_in_tokyo:

Your posts are fascinating to read. Doesn't matter how sympathetic people are to trans, doesn't matter how polite they are, how much they support the rights of trans people, if they won't take that extra step and bow down to the "trans women are real women" argument, every other thing they say is disregarded, insulted and deemed irrelevant. That is precisely what cancel culture is - the cancelling out of other people's opinions because they fail to match your ideological purity.

Spot on. And note that the "woke" staff at Rowlings publisher refused to work with her new book, demanding it to be cancelled, because Rowlings is guilty of wrongthink. For now, I think the publisher has not caved to that demand, but that is exactly what cancel culture is.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

sourpuss

Example: I'm a moderate (grumpy) liberal in general, but when people tell me a trans woman is the same as a woman, I balk. Suddenly I'm treated by people who I generally sympathize with as worse than a war-criminal.

Reminds me of Joe Rogans comment on this: He is very open on trans rights, but when people demand "trans women" compete as females in MMA and beat up women (like Fallon Fox) he puts his foot down. "This is the hill I die on".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

strangerland

Because in the eye of the write, Kaepernick performed "wrongpseak" and the right wing "mob" freaked out and had him "slienced".

Where was he cancelled? I understand he is around, has all his media presence and all his corporate sponsors.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These current "cancel" culture reminds me of a similar movement in the past : " Chinese cultural revolution" where everything or everyone who represents or expressed the wrong thought or wrong image would be destroyed or denounced. The impact of this is long lasting in China and to a lesser extent in Vietnam. In China, many cultural artefacts and architectural structures were destroyed and lost. Of course, both movement were originated from the far left. The irony for those advocate for these movements are often themselves got "cancelled" the moment they could not maintain the purity of thought.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

JK Rowling was right on a certain point-only biological women can menstruate and give birth.

Yet, stating facts caused a crap storm?!?

When males get sent to female prisons, identifying as a female and rape the inmates, then something has malfunctioned badly due to ignoring basic facts!

I’m all for equality but not for plain stupidity....

4 ( +4 / -0 )

"Where was he cancelled? I understand he is around, has all his media presence and all his corporate sponsors"

It is pretty obvious he has been blacklisted from professional football for taking a knee during the national anthem. That is cancel culture. Professional football was his bread and butter and now he can't work because of his political views.

And btw, whether right or left I don't think anyone should be fired for what they say or even sometimes what they do off the job. I read all the time that this or that person was fired for something they posted on social media, or for calling the police on a black person for having the temerity of calling them out for not leashing their dog. Yeah the people in question were boorish and have unsavory biases but if we claim to value free speech then they have a right to express their views. Calls for social media to moderate or whatever "hate speech" or conspiracy theories are all wrong. Let people say whatever they want to say even if it is extremist and racist. Censorship is never the answer. It simply hardens opinions and makes martyrs out of those who are censored. The best counter to racism or extremism are well thought out counter arguments and data. Learn to debate effectively instead of always immediately blocking someone who's views offend you. I'm generally liberal and find much of what the right puts out to be disgusting, but censoring their speech is never the answer. Well thought out counter arguments and persuasion are the answer.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Spot on. And note that the "woke" staff at Rowlings publisher refused to work with her new book, demanding it to be cancelled, because Rowlings is guilty of wrongthink. For now, I think the publisher has not caved to that demand, but that is exactly what cancel culture is."

My dad never allowed me to watch Charlie Chaplain movies because of his politics. He detested Barbara Streisand and Jane Fonda for the same basic reason. Banned from the household, and my mom loved Barbara Streisand. My first employer out of high school berated me in front of the staff when he found out what public university I was to attend in the fall, calling that university a "40 year communist plot" and saying my father was shameful to allow me to go there. I had to inform this employer that in 1945 while he was selling cars my dad was in the mountains of what was then Italy, but now is Slovenia, fighting real live communists (Tito's partisans). I almost punched him and was about to when my department manager grabbed me. I was livid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Desert tortoise

It is pretty obvious he has been blacklisted from professional football for taking a knee during the national anthem. That is cancel culture. Professional football was his bread and butter and now he can't work because of his political views.

In February 2019, it was reported that Kaepernick spoke with the Alliance of American Football and XFL about becoming a quarterback for them but wanted a guaranteed $20,000,000 per season. XFL quarterbacks were paid $250,000 per season (from Wiki)

Not greed rather than "blacklisting"?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

kurisupisu

Yet, stating facts caused a crap storm?!?

It also causes being kicked off Twitter and losing your job at American universities. Yep, cancel culture.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Not greed rather than "blacklisting"?

Yawn.You clearly don't follow the NFL if that's the best you can do.He'd been trying to get back in for years,but when you're blacklisted,people don't let you in.So...he said if you want to use me for your minor league outfit,I wanna be paid.He didn't want to play there so priced himself out.He's still getting well-paid,so not about money.

Like I said last week,Cancel Culture is just another way of being politically correct.JK Rowlings is a famous person, who because she is, received fierce backlash, that we as unknown keyboard warriors don't have to worry about. I'm sure half the lip that people engage in on here,wouldn't happen with their friends.Many people like to vent as a stress releaser and the passion/anger of some is just wow.Hopefully in 99 days that'll be over. I need a break from the noise badly.Lol.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

BigYenToday 01:53 pm JST

Doesn't matter how sympathetic people are to trans, doesn't matter how polite they are, how much they support the rights of trans people, if they won't take that extra step and bow down to the "trans women are real women" argument, every other thing they say is disregarded, insulted and deemed irrelevant.

You need to take another look at that statement.

If someone is truly sympathetic, then they will understand the importance of trans identities, and aren't going to have a problem saying the words "transwomen are women." If you can't take that step and can't accept or respecting trans identities, then I'm afraid you can't claim you are truly sympathetic.

If transwomen aren't women, then there is no obligation that they be treated in the same way as and be given the same rights as cis women. That's a contradiction with "support the rights of".

And,

You conflate the politely expressed, generally sympathetic opinions of a liberal like JK Rowling with some of the worst anti-trans, anti-gay sentiments as though they were all the same.

it's neither polite or sympathetic to advocate for restricting human rights, which is what Rowling is doing in advocating for bathroom laws and other restrictions against transwomen.

All these fears you mention - being beaten up and murdered, etcetera - how do statements like Rowling's (or mine, or anyone else arguing with you here) encourage that?

The problem is, when people deny trans identities and advocate for legislation like bathroom laws, it stokes fear and hate, and encourages attacks on trasnwomen whose only intention in entering the women's bathroom is to pee.

Do you speak for all women? Bi, lesbian, straight, however it is you identify? TERFs are not bigots, they're women, often lesbian/other, who don't agree with you for multiple reasons of their own. To describe them as TERFs and to dismiss them as bigots is, once again, to try to dismiss and cancel their opinion because it doesn't agree with yours.

You are literally, with this sentence, trying to shut me down. Literally.

I never claimed to speak for all women. In case you didn't realize, women aren't a monolith, feminists don't all hold the same views, and feminists very often disagree.

TERFS are bigots because they hold views based on personal prejudice instead of fact.

I don't have the power to "cancel" anyone. I find it kind of funny that you think me replying to you on some obscure news site is akin to "canceling" someone. I am not even sure exactly who it is you think I am cancelling?

What you really seem to be upset about is that I am voicing disagreement with you. But you are voicing your disagreement with me, too - does that mean you are cancelling me at the same time I am cancelling you? The entire concept is really rather convoluted.

Comments about tolerance and how it's defined are as much my call to make as they are yours.

Words have meanings. No one is trying to redefine "tolerance". What we are saying, however, is that tolerance has limits - to quote Karl Popper, "if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

But then I have no obligation to consider the opinions of people who are trying as hard as they can to have everyone say that trans is female just as natural-born females are female, just because they desperately want it to be so.

Well, all I can say is that there are rather a lot of people these days who seem to think that they know more than subject matter experts. "My ignorance is just as good as your education" seems to have become a norm. shrug.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

sourpuss Today 05:22 pm JST

Why? It's illegal.

Very recently the US Supreme Court ruled that people can't be fired for sexual expression or identity. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. We all know that laws get ignored and broken all the time, so transpeople still have this to fear.

Obviously false. Why would she keep tweeting despite being called a bigot pretty much every single time?

JK Rowling fears loosing fans and thus popularity and income.

JK Rowling fears her work will be out shadowed by her comments.

Obviously not. See above.

The points I made are what define cancel culture. If Rowling doesn't fear these things, then she doesn't fear cancel culture. And if that is the case, then why is she speaking out against "cancel culture" in the first place?

Your misreading of pretty much everything Rowling has said and done is, well, illuminating.

Indeed.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

kurisupisu Today 09:11 pm JST

JK Rowling was right on a certain point-only biological women can menstruate and give birth.

There is no such thing as a "biological woman". There is no such phrasing used in biology, because that is not how biologists define either sex or gender.

Yet, stating facts caused a crap storm?!?

Refusing to respect trans identities was only part of it. What really caused the "crap storm" was her advocating for bathroom laws and other restrictions against transwomen.

When males get sent to female prisons, identifying as a female and rape the inmates, then something has malfunctioned badly due to ignoring basic facts!

Males don't get sent to female prisons.

Transpeople are no more likely to commit rape than anyone else.

I'd like to take this time to point out this person as an example of how denying trans identities leads to fear mongering, hate, and potentially violence. In this person's mind, a transwoman's presence in a prison for women is likely to lead to rape. in this view, transwomen are dangerous predators due only to the fact that they are trans - which in some people's minds justifies violence against them.

This is what Rowling's views inevitably lead to if the logic is played out. Abhorrent, isn't it.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

One's sexuality isn't necessarily binary. There males (XY), females (XX) and several steps in between including the various degrees of Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS). One can be born with aspects of male and female anatomy (intersex) while being genetically male (XY). Often infants are surgically assigned a sex at birth (depending on whether male or female genitals were most noticeable) but later in life find they identify more closely with the other sex. People need to gain an understanding of science.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I will say that I believe women are women, trans women are trans women, trans men are trans men, and men are men.

None of them is the other. They are all different, and all deserve equality of opportunity. That does not mean that all should be treated exactly the same, because they are not exactly the same.

Sports is the best example of this, as it is one of the more clearer areas of meritocracy in humanity. In sports we can clearly see that it is not fair to force trans women to compete with men, same as we can see it’s not fair to force women to compete with trans women. However, all deserve the equal opportunity to compete. This requires a third category in sports; men’s, women’s, and trans. Or maybe even two categories for trans - one each for trans men and trans women.

This same consideration must be given in other areas as well. Bathrooms may be a good example. Either a third asexual bathroom, or maybe trans specific bathrooms.

To sum this all up, trans women deserve all the equality of opportunity of people born to their inner gender identity. But that doesn’t make trans women the same as women. If you say trans women are women, then you must also say women are trans women. And they aren’t. They are women who did not start their development with the physicality of a male

Women are women, trans women are trans women, trans men are trans men, and men are men. All deserve to given the base dignity of a human being without being penalized for belonging to whichever category they happen to belong.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

sourpussJuly 28  10:24 am JST

A whole lot of people just need to get used to the idea that they are NOT "perfectly normal". A whole bunch more people need to get used to the idea that variety is the spice of life and as with mere words, LGBTQ people do not explode either so deal with it.

I think the problem is less the need to get used to, and more the need for less extremist domination of the conversation. If the extremists weren't so trigger happy, maybe other people would find things easier to get used to.

Example: I'm a moderate (grumpy) liberal in general, but when people tell me a trans woman is the same as a woman, I balk. Suddenly I'm treated by people who I generally sympathize with as worse than a war-criminal.

That's a major facet of the problem. You have loudmouths on both sides who think they have to SCREAM at you and TELL you what 'proper' words to use. PC types shout and scream and label as 'racist' anyone who doesn't use the soulless labelling words they use and Trump-like bigots pop off the chops by refering to everyone not like them by some moronic slur words.

I have no use for screaming loudmouths of any kind. They need to just shut up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

girl in tokyo

There is no such thing as a "biological woman". There is no such phrasing used in biology, because that is not how biologists define either sex or gender.

LOL, so we are the first unisexual mammal then? How do we procreate? Have you asked biologists about this?

Refusing to respect trans identities was only part of it.

You can respect peoples quirks, as long as they dont hurt others. Fwiw, there is a girl in Norway that identifies as a cat. She still has a Norwegian passport for humans, though.

Males don't get sent to female prisons.

Males who identify as females, aka "trans women"? Yep, this has happened in the UK already. Google it.

Transpeople are no more likely to commit rape than anyone else

Actually, that was the result I mentioned in the case above. No surprise to anybody outside with woke crowd.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Comes a time in these discussions when you just have to give up on it and get back to the real world. As my old grandmother used to say, "You can't argue with a brick wall". The Moderators have been very patient, but this thread is in its third day now and no-one's moving an inch. So, with bloodied forehead but with opinions unchanged, I'm going somewhere else for an argument.

One last thing - JK Rowling has a new book coming out, The Ickabog. I'd like to wish her every success with it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Strangerland

This same consideration must be given in other areas as well. Bathrooms may be a good example. Either a third asexual bathroom, or maybe trans specific bathrooms

Right, separate but equal.

Because that always turns out well and doesn't reinforce inferiority, bigotry, or stoke fear and hate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JK Rowling has a new book coming out, The Ickabog. I'd like to wish her every success with it.

Looking forward to it. I think I’ll buy extra copies. And in multiple languages!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Often infants are surgically assigned a sex at birth (depending on whether male or female genitals were most noticeable) but later in life find they identify more closely with the other sex. 

So then, if a person with males sex organs goes to get a Brazilian wax job, but the beautician only knows how to do it on female sex organs and refuses the job, is the beautician guilty of discrimination?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Zaphod Today 04:14 am JST

LOL, so we are the first unisexual mammal then? How do we procreate? Have you asked biologists about this?

As Desert Tortoise said,

People need to gain an understanding of science.

Was it you who down voted that comment?

You can respect peoples quirks, as long as they dont hurt others.

I said respect their identity, not be indulgent towards them while laughing behind their backs.

And who are they hurting, exactly?

Males who identify as females, aka "trans women"? Yep, this has happened in the UK already. Google it.

I don't need to google it because I'm aware that transwomen have been allowed to join the population of female prisoners in some contexts. I simply objected to your wording, which you seem to have realized since you did change that wording here.

Actually, that was the result I mentioned in the case above. No surprise to anybody outside with woke crowd.

I don't think you understood my point, so it may bear repeating:

Transpeople on the whole do not commit more crimes that cis people. Stoking fears in this manner results in prejudice and violence towards transpeople.

When people refuse to understand this is a real thing that happens, and simply continues to repeat false information, the only conclusion I can reach is this:

Those people don't care if transpeople are beaten or murdered as long as they don't have to pee next to them.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

starpunkToday 03:41 am JST

I think the problem is less the need to get used to, and more the need for less extremist domination of the conversation. If the extremists weren't so trigger happy, maybe other people would find things easier to get used to.

It is not extremist to want equal rights or to be treated with respect.

That's a major facet of the problem. You have loudmouths on both sides who think they have to SCREAM at you and TELL you what 'proper' words to use.

May I point out it is you who is using bold lettering and all caps. Ahem.

PC types shout and scream and label as 'racist' anyone who doesn't use the soulless labelling words they use and Trump-like bigots pop off the chops by refering to everyone not like them by some moronic slur words.

The word we use is "bigot", or "transphobe", not "racist". I think you are in the wrong thread - the thread where everyone was defending racism was a couple of days ago.

I have no use for screaming loudmouths of any kind. They need to just shut up.

Funny, but several people here have been contending that is is the progressives who are trying to silence everyone who disagrees with them. But I didn't bold those words when I coped and pasted; that is your original fomatting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

girl in tokyo

Transpeople on the whole do not commit more crimes that cis people. Stoking fears in this manner results in prejudice and violence towards transpeople.

Strawman. Nobody claims that. However that is no reason to put biological males into the female prison population or female locker rooms.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

sourpuss

So then, if a person with males sex organs goes to get a Brazilian wax job, but the beautician only knows how to do it on female sex organs and refuses the job, is the beautician guilty of discrimination?

According to the Vancouver human rights comission, apparently yes. Wonder what girl in Tokyo thinks about it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Right, separate but equal.

Because that always turns out well and doesn't reinforce inferiority, bigotry, or stoke fear and hate.

You realize by this logic that having separate bathrooms for men and women hasn't turned out well, and has reinforced inferiority, bigotry, and stoked fear and hate.

Really? Should we have one bathroom for everyone?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

StrangerlandToday 12:37 pm JST

You realize by this logic that having separate bathrooms for men and women hasn't turned out well, and has reinforced inferiority, bigotry, and stoked fear and hate.

Really? Should we have one bathroom for everyone?

It looks like you may have missed the point, so I think it's worth repeating.

Transpeople have been using bathrooms, locker rooms, and other gender-segregated facilities without incident for many, many years now. No one made a fuss about it until a few years ago when trans issues came to the forefront and people began to realize that transpeople had been peeing and changing clothes next to them all along. The ensuing debate and "bathroom bad" legislation was a knee-jerk reaction based purely on fear of the unknown, ignorance, and prejudice towards transpeople.

Transpeople should be able to continue to use these facilities, just as they have in the past, because they do not present any danger whatsoever to anyone else using them.

I wonder if you remember the thread a while back where some high school boys snuck into the women's onsen? The ensuing debate in the comments section was spearheaded by men who tried to make the case that it was hypocritical to allow cleaning women into the men's bathroom when men are not allowed to enter the women's onsen.

This debate reminds me of that one, because the argument many here seem to be making is that men are not dangerous to women while simultaneously being a danger to women.

I know you were not one of the people making that particular argument in that thread; but the logic is similar as you have in the past also argued that men are not inherently dangerous to women - yet here, you seem to be saying that not only are transwomen just men in disguise (or something) but also that they present a particular danger to women.

How can you logically hold those two positions at the same time?

Before you reply by asking me the same thing, let's be clear that I am arguing that transwomen are women, and do not rape women or commit other sex crimes at higher rates than cisgender women.

Also, you know that I am a feminist, that I support #metoo, and that my mantra is "believe women." Do you honestly think that if I imagined transwomen were dangerous to women that I would support trans-inclusive facilities?

The reason I don't fear transwomen is because I know transwomen are women because I have interacted with them, talked with them, been friends with them, gone to the bathroom with them, changed in locker rooms with them, traveled with them, and some have been my best friends.

I think the reason many of you here are so hell bent on arguing this point is because you have very little interaction with the LGBTQIA community in general, and even less with transpeople, and therefore retain prejudices.

As the LGBTQIA community gains visibility, people have slowly begun to realize that LGBTQIA are just like everyone else, and prejudices have been dropping away.

Last word on the subject: there is a new documentary on Netflix about the experiences of transgender people. I suggest you watch it. http://www.disclosurethemovie.com/

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

ZaphodToday 12:21 pm JST

Strawman. Nobody claims that.

Yes, people are claiming that, including right here in this thread. This scare tactic of claiming that transwomen are a danger to ciswomen is what spearheaded this campaign in the first place. But honestly? I think you have known that all along. You just want to keep arguing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This scare tactic of claiming that transwomen are a danger to ciswomen is what spearheaded this campaign in the first place.

Havent you been arguing before that males are a danger to females?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

sourpuss

So then, if a person with males sex organs goes to get a Brazilian wax job, but the beautician only knows how to do it on female sex organs and refuses the job, is the beautician guilty of discrimination?

No. Because if someone doesn't have the expertise it would be irresponsible and professionally negligent for them to even try. Also, it's one thing to acknowledge that transwomen are women, but quite another to require someone who is not comfortable with handling a penis, to handle a penis.

We get to have preferences when it comes to handling genitals. We don't get to demean people or refuse to acknowledge their gender identity.

Please remember: sex, gender, and genitals are all separate issues, even though there is a thread connecting them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zaphod Today 12:22 pm JST

According to the Vancouver human rights comission, apparently yes. Wonder what girl in Tokyo thinks about it.

Actually, the person who brought that case against the salon lost: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/23/canadian-transgender-woman-loses-case-against-beauticians-refused/

You might want to get your facts straight before posting. And by the way? It's not only perfectly okay to ask me direct questions if you want my opinion on something, I encourage you to do so before making assumptions. Case in point, look above to where I replied to sourpuss.

Surprised at my stance? You shouldn't be, but I imagine you are since you don't really understand my stance at all. You make a lot of assumptions without asking questions, and I wind up spending quite a lot of time correcting those assumptions.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Sports is the best example of this, as it is one of the more clearer areas of meritocracy in humanity. In sports we can clearly see that it is not fair to force trans women to compete with men, same as we can see it’s not fair to force women to compete with trans women. However, all deserve the equal opportunity to compete. This requires a third category in sports; men’s, women’s, and trans. Or maybe even two categories for trans - one each for trans men and trans women.

The area of sports is one that must be addressed here. It isn’t a minor issue as sports are very high profile and watched by billions.

I find it very disturbing that some may accept a trans fighter possibly killing a woman in the ring with the blanket statement that all transpeople should be treated in exactly the same way.

@girl_in_tokyo

Would you accept that a separate category for trans athletes should be created if it could be shown that it is unfair or life-threatening? I know you don’t know much about this but surely you can comment on the principle.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

girl in tokyo

Actually, the person who brought that case against the salon lost: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/23/canadian-transgender-woman-loses-case-against-beauticians-refused/

Wel, that is good to know. He did put several beautitians out of business with his demand that they wax his balls though.

So what do think about Jonathan Yanif then? If transwomen are women, he is a woman, no?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ZaphodToday 02:29 pm JST

Wel, that is good to know. He did put several beautitians out of business with his demand that they wax his balls though.

Don't use male pronouns for transwomen - it's demeaning.

So what do think about Jonathan Yanif then? If transwomen are women, he is a woman, no?

As far as I understand, Ms. Yanif is a troublemaker and not a very honest person. But since I don't know her personally, I can only base that from the impression I got of her from from her lawsuits, which are ridiculous.

I can only imagine that you asked me this as a sort of test. This goes back to what I said to you earlier: you make a lot of assumptions without asking questions, and I wind up spending quite a lot of time correcting those assumptions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JimizoToday 01:53 pm JST

Would you accept that a separate category for trans athletes should be created if it could be shown that it is unfair or life-threatening? I know you don’t know much about this but surely you can comment on the principle.

Sorry, I can't comment because I'm not well informed on the issue. My opinion is therefore immaterial as it's likely to be factually wrong.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The problem is that "identity" is such an ephemeral idea. It can change in an instant. If you want to know which bathroom to use, open your pants and look down. The answer will be clear.

I agree with Germaine Greer that being a woman is much more than simply saying that you are, or mutilating your body to resemble being one. A man who lives 50 years as a man, has 4 kids with his wife, and then suddenly decides it was all a mistake? He needs counselling more than affirmation.

I agree that people should be allowed to live their lives as they want to. But I shouldn't have to be forced into accepting their delusions.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

girl in tokyo

As far as I understand, Ms. Yanif is a troublemaker and not a very honest person. But since I don't know her personally, I can only base that from the impression I got of her from from her lawsuits, which are ridiculous.

"Ms. Yanif" is a "transwoman". So do you think the beauticians should be legally obliged to wax her balls, or should people be treated differently, depending on their genitalia? A That should be a simple question to answer.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Is this still going?

Sorry, I can't comment because I'm not well informed on the issue. My opinion is therefore immaterial as it's likely to be factually wrong.

You're not informed on the issue? The entire subtext of every post you've made on this thread - accompanied by the more than occasional outright claim - is that you 're the only poster with an opinion worth listening to because you think yourself more informed on this issue than anyone else who's ventured to make a comment. And yet on this one very important area to so many women worldwide you clam up and modestly claim a convenient ignorance.

The only reason you're maintaining such an unconvincing silence on this issue is that if you were to admit the truth contained in acknowledging the difference between male and female physicality when it comes to transgender people playing sport, the whole carefully constructed ideological edifice that you defend so stridently would come crashing down around your ears.

Surprised at my stance? You shouldn't be, but I imagine you are since you don't really understand my stance at all.

Of course we understand your stance. Your stance is all over this page. Could you be any more condescending?

I’m a trans ally who understands trans issues because I have trans friends and listen to them.

You're a trans ally? Then I really suggest that you go about arguing the case for a cause that obviously means a lot to you without the dismissiveness and condescension that unfortunately tends to dominate your posts.

That’s unless of course your real intention is to alienate reasonable, unprejudiced people who genuinely wish for trans, gay and bi people to be able to live and work just like everyone else, without violence and discrimination, in which case you’re going the right way about it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Would you accept that a separate category for trans athletes should be created if it could be shown that it is unfair or life-threatening? I know you don’t know much about this but surely you can comment on the principle.

Sorry, I can't comment because I'm not well informed on the issue. My opinion is therefore immaterial as it's likely to be factually wrong.

My advice before making statements like ‘trans people are women’ and that they should be treated the same as everyone else would be to get more informed on this particular issue. This is an important part of the debate and part of how my thinking was formed on this issue. Speaking as someone who boxed in the past alongside women, the idea of watching a fighter with the physical advantages of a man fighting a woman is alarming to say the least. In other sports, it may not be as potentially lethal, but it would still be unfair.

I despise bigotry against trans people, but in this area, the idea of treating trans people the same as everyone else makes no sense to me and is beyond irresponsible. Your simplistic idea of treating trans people exactly the same isn’t very well researched.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Jimizo' it has happened already. In MMA, a transwoman was competing against natural born women. She broke the other fighter's skull. I believe the trans fighter's name is Falun Fox? Something like that.

Also has happened in weightlifting, cycling, and sprinting at various events. Nobody should be mistreated, that is something we can all agree on. But there are limits as to what is acceptable.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites