Cancel culture?

The talking point in social media at the moment (in my bubble, at least) seems to be the letter on justice and open debate, signed by 150 luminaries. It’s not been universally well-received. There was some quite measured comments in this article, and somewhat blunter ones in this article.

I find this quite a confusing issue. This is partly because people whose views I generally respect seem to disagree quite strongly about this, and make some compelling arguments both for, and against. I certainly agree that there are some serious problems with current public discourse; it would certainly be nice if it were easier to have good faith discussions about contentious issues. On the other hand, I’m not convinced that there is some major problem that we might describe as a “cancel culture”.

To be quite honest, I’m not even quite sure what “cancel culture” is, or even if it has been clearly defined. Where do you draw the line between a society threatening “cancel culture” and robust disagreements that might have gone further than we might like? How do we distinguish between someone justifiably objecting to what another person is promoting, and them trying to unacceptably silence/cancel the other person? When is it okay for an organisation to penalise one of their members for what they’ve said publicly and when should we expect organisations to defend their members in the interests of free speech, even if they also object to what was said?

My issue with this narrative is partly based on my experiences in the public climate debate. Most of those who complain about censorship, or being silenced/cancelled, seem to be those who say things that deserve to be criticised and simply don’t want to engage with their critics; it’s more about deligitimising one’s critics, than defending free speech. My understanding is that a number of those who signed the letter have similar reputations.

This, of course, doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t be concerned about attacks on free speech. It doesn’t mean that some of what is highlighted in the context “cancel culture” aren’t things that decent people should object to. However, we should also be careful of dealing with things like this in ways that end up deligitimising valid criticisms, and underming valid social movements. In fact, I can’t quite see how we can deal with some kind of “cancel culture” (however defined) that doesn’t end up doing the very thing we’re trying to avoid.

Of course, I may well misunderstand many aspects of this; it is clearly a complex issue. I had intended to make this a bit of an open thread but, as usual, have written too much. I’d certainly be interested to hear what others think about this issue.

This entry was posted in advocacy, Personal, Philosophy for Bloggers and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

398 Responses to Cancel culture?

  1. Dmitry Shultz says:

    Trying to destroy somebody’s life because of his/her views on controversial topics without open debate is ‘Cancel Culture’. And this is exactly what happening.

  2. Dmitry,
    That’s objectionable. However, there is a difference between some people doing objectionable things, and there been a huge culture of doing such things. In many countries there is already legislation that is meant to deal with some of these kinds of things. What would you do in addition, or differently? How would you deal with someone, or a group, that you regard as engaging in “cancel culture” and how would ensure that you weren’t ultimately silencing them, rather than resolving an insidious cultural issue?

  3. RickA says:

    Name calling is not cancel culture. Robust disagreement is not cancel culture.

    Trying to get someone fired or evicted because you disagree with what they have said or have written is cancel culture. Trying to reduce someones income because you disagree with what they said (get jobs cancelled, boycotting an individual etc.) is cancel culture.

    That is my fairly basic understanding of the issue.

  4. I look forward to following this discussion. “cancel culture” confuses me, too, so maybe I will learn something here? my partner and I watched Margin Call last night. Wonderful performance by Kevin Spacey and I like him as an actor generally. If I understand cancel culture, maybe Spacey was cancelled as an actor and for roles because of reports of his sexual offenses. I just reviewed the Spacey story here and it does sound very, very bad. https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/11/3/16602628/kevin-spacey-sexual-assault-allegations-house-of-cards
    but I am not sure it makes sense for a person to lose their livelihood over jerk behavior. We have courts that can determine if a crime has been committed, we have civil courts that can decide if monetary damages are owed to a person victimized by another, do we need more than that? Is that what this post is about in some way?

  5. Rick,
    Even that doesn’t seem quite as black and white as you suggest. As a consumer, I can use whatever criteria I like to purchase a product. If I don’t like a particular columnist, I can choose not to buy a particular newspaper. It might not be very nice to point out publicly that you won’t buy that newspaper unless they get rid of that columnist, but it’s not obviously wrong. Trying to get an academic fired for expressing public views you disagree with is more obviously an issue, given that academic typically has academic freedom. Even then, though, you would expect their university to support them. If they were fired, my immediate criticism would be of the university for not supporting their staff, rather than of those calling for them to be fired (I might still object to this, of course).

    It might seem simple to define cancel culture, but it’s not clear that it’s quite as obvious when you consider cases in more detail.

  6. RickA says:

    ATTP:
    Right – I agree about your decision to buy a product. But to try to wipe up a mob and organize a large group of people to try to get a reporter fired – that is cancel culture. To try to get a mob and organize a large group of people to say – I disagree with your opinion – that is ok.

    At least that is my take on it.

  7. Rick,
    Sure, I’m with you on the mobbing. That is more organised than an individual choosing to express a view. So, if we want to define “cancel culture” as something more organised, then I’d agree with that. Still not entirely sure what one would do about it, other than try to support those who face this even if we disagree with what they’ve said.

  8. RickA says:

    ATTP:

    I think all instances I have seen of cancel culture were organized affairs.

    All we can do as individuals is not be part of the mob.

    In other words, don’t try to get someone fired because someone asked you to, or wrote a post that it would be a good idea.

    That should take care of the problem.

  9. Rick,
    Yes, that’s largely my view. We can have legislation that deals with actual threats, but when it comes to people behaving badly on social media all we can really is behave better ourselves and do our best to defend those who are targetted.

  10. Dmitry Shultz says:

    The current way how cancel culture works is by abusing the option to be anonymous on the Internet. I. e. mostly anonymous (but organised using social media) mob is harrasing whoever they feel like providing no option to respond because there is no way to have a debate with anonymous mob.
    The first thing to do is to publicly discredit anonymous antifa mob style stacks. If you don’t provide your name (cover your face) – you have no credibility and your opinion doesn’t matter.

  11. Dmitry,
    Sure, I think the ability to be anonymous on the internet does mean people do things that they might not do were their names known. However, how do you publicly discredit anonymous mobs? I’m not arguing against it, I’m just not sure what you would do in practice, that we can’t already do. FWIW, I partly think one issue is how people respond. Organisations/Businesses could simply refuse to respond to any social media mobbing of their members/employees.

    However, the reason they presumably respond is because they worry that not doing so might impact their business. Might be nice to think that organisations/businesses might hold some moral high ground, but if their primary goal is to make money, then they’re unlikely to do so if they regard responding as having less of an impact on their business than standing their ground.

  12. Willard says:

    > The current way how cancel culture works is by abusing the option to be anonymous on the Internet.

    That’s false, as many signatories are online bullies themselves, but that reminds me I need to do a “but anonymous” square for my ClimateBall Bingo.

  13. Dmitry Shultz says:

    I don’t think it will be very hard to come up with a plan to discredit anonymous mob attack for organizations.
    For start organizations should ask credentials every time somebody is trying to ‘cancel’ somebody else. These credentials should be provided to the ‘target’ so he/she can reply. And this should go all the way even for internal canceling attempts. I.e. there should be no ground for corporate HR to fire somebody just because ‘some people have complains, but we can’t say who exactly’.

  14. Dmitry,
    Sure, but you seem to be assuming that organisations value this issue over their basic business. It would be very nice if organisations routinely put their concerns about free speech, etc, above their bottom line, but I’m not convinced that most would be willing to do that.

  15. It looks like 150 so-called luminaries missed out on all those public demonstrations by mostly ordinary people.

    Oh and I hate so-called public intellectuals. Some of us, at least, are perfectly capable of thinking for ourselves, thank you very much.

  16. Raymond Lutz says:

    For now, the best commentaries IMHO is from David Doel (first) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qlcXNMmlsI and then Vaush (second) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzbzonEq51c

  17. Steven says:

    > The current way how cancel culture works is by abusing the option to be anonymous on the Internet.

    Ya, this just isn’t true. People are more than happy to submit their names and professional identities to remove a person with inconvenient opinions. The petitions against Abigail Thompson and Stephen Hsu are examples of this. Non-anonymity is the point–the petitioners want to apply social pressure to limit the range of acceptable opinions. You’re less likely to speak up if you know your colleague tried to get someone fired for making the same point.

    I think the original post brings up some good points, and I don’t know how to answer all of them. But I also think there is something to ‘cancel culture’–some of what I see on twitter is so bizarre I can’t believe ostensibly intelligent are part of it.

  18. Steven,
    Yes, I agree that it’s not that there is nothing to this. I’m not convinced that it’s quite as big a deal as some think, and – as I said in the post – I don’t really know how you deal with this in a way that doesn’t end up being used to stifle criticism.

  19. jacksmith4tx says:

    Is anyone really anonymous? Only if a lot of interconnected agencies and service providers allow it.
    We are living with the results of not having enough IP addresses when they rolled out the internet with IPv4. Everything might have turned out different if your IP address was like you driver’s license number, medical or tax ID, unique and non transferable. The anonymous user on the internet was an Original Sin. In my fantasy world every thing I say or post to the internet would have a digital token like a PGP key that could only be accessed if and only if I authorized it, even retroactively (I’m thinking of something like blockchain). Imagine what this would do to hackers and digital crime if they could not even log on to the net without a valid IP? One of these days there will be a crisis like a ransomware attack on global central bankers or the military and it might force the issue.

  20. Hi, ATTP.

    An important and thought-provoking post. Thank you for writing this.

    I have concerns when it comes to elements of “cancel culture” bleeding into academia: https://muircheartblog.wpcomstaging.com/2020/06/09/the-pen-is-mightier-than-the-pitchfork/

  21. Willard says:

    > The petitions against Abigail Thompson and Stephen Hsu are examples of this.

    No idea about Abigail, but I’m quite sure the fight for Freedom is worth more than asking what about StephenH:

    A little over a week ago, on 10 June 2020 the GEU pointed out Hsu’s relationship with the antisemitic Unz on a long twitter thread. The next day, I posted a long explanation of Unz, his racist website, and Hsu’s behavior on the podcast with his racist friend. What has Hsu done in response in the past nine days?

    One thing he hasn’t done is try to defend his endorsement of unz.com. He has not written or said a word about it. He has not taken any kind of responsibility for it. He has not apologized for it. He has not tried to explain how he is still fit for his job. I can’t really blame him. How would such an explanation or apology look?

    https://altrightorigins.com/2020/06/19/hsu-irresponsible/

    Like actions, words have consequences, even for a VP of Research in a U that preaches inclusiveness.

  22. Philip,
    Nice post. I agree that those are concerning issues and that we should avoid cancelling people who are attempting to engage in academic discourse but who promote work that we regard as flawed. We should robustly challenge it and there are certainly avenues for retraction, but they should be based on serious issues with their academic conduct, and not just based on people disliking what they present.

    In some sense, this may illustrate my current view (which may need some more thought). One way to address this “cancel culture” is for institutions to refuse to bow to it. Journals should not retract papers just because there is an outcry about them. Universities should not punish academic simply because they’ve said something publicly that others object to. Of course, this would also require many in the public sphere also supporting this, even if they personally object to what the individual being targetted has said/promoted.

  23. paulski0 says:

    Would the anti-apartheid boycotts of South Africa, including expulsion from international sports events like the olympics, now be considered “cancel culture”?

    Many people talking about “cancel culture” align themselves as supporters of the free market of ideas, but there is no governmental organisation involved in this discussion. If people are being “cancelled” it is a result of the free market of ideas as it’s currently operating in this social media landscape. Certainly not saying it’s right, but being a bad thing doesn’t mean it isn’t a result of free exchange.

    It just occurred to me that there is a climate connection here. I recall from many years ago “skeptics” were frequently engaging in campaigns to get prominent climate scientists and bloggers fired, contacting employers to complain about supposed transgressions. Plus the weekly calls for abolition of the IPCC, defunding of climate research etc. I’m sure most of those involved are now complaining about “cancel culture” with no trace of irony.

    So tactically I don’t think there’s anything new here and there’s a great deal of hypocrisy about it (again, nothing new there). What is new is the speed at which social media enables the forming of very large numbers in favour of, or against, some action. That does mean individuals who feel they’ve had no real platform before are able to have a real influence through being part of this group. Of course, another word for that is a mob.

    Social media also seems to have elevated brand consciousness, or brand paranoia, of organisations to a whole new level, with the result that they’re very quick to push out an employee caught in a storm, even understanding it could result in a large payout from an employment tribunal.

    Regarding the letter, I think I basically agree with all of it. The trouble is, as ATTP says, what now? I think one problem is that many involved keep talking as if this were a simple free speech issue when it isn’t. What they’re proposing isn’t free speech, but a particular set of rules for how free speech should be conducted.

  24. Dmitry Shultz says:

    >every thing I say or post to the internet would have a digital token like a PGP key that could only be accessed if and only if I authorized it, even retroactively (I’m thinking of something like blockchain)

    Exactly! This will solve a lot of current issues including mob patterns.

  25. Willard says:

    The Venn diagram between CC and the good ol’ concerns about PC form a perfect circle:

    For those who don’t know teh tweeter, this is an episode last summer where Jeet, a guy who signed the letter, showed how Jonathan, an editor of Claire’s, was winking at Margaret to write for Claire’s.

    Cue to yesterday:

    It doesn’t take much to get cancelled these days. Last month, my turn came around. The experience was unpleasant, but also completely ludicrous. And I learned a lot. I learned how easily an institution will cave to a mob. I learned how quickly the authorities will run for cover, notwithstanding the lip service they may pay to principles of free speech.

    https://quillette.com/2020/07/09/it-wasnt-my-cancelation-that-bothered-me-it-was-the-cowardice-of-those-who-let-it-happen/

    So let’s recap: a famous contrarian gets appointed to Massey College. Nobody has any idea how, the process being sealed. Alissa Trotz resigns in protest. A petition is signed in which it is recalled that Margaret already got caught plagiarizing a few times. Her appointment is rescinded. The end.

    If that’s being cancelled, then I would argue that logic is the worst cancellation tool humanity got.

  26. I think there are valid reasons why some people may choose to remain anonymous on the internet. I guess we could decide that the consequences of allowing anonymity on the internet outweighs the benefits of allowing it, but I don’t think allowing anonymity on the internet is completely negative. I also wonder if the PGP key idea is really worthwhile. It’s already pretty tricky for the average person to remain truly anonymous. Some may have the skills to do so, but most don’t. Maybe we could design something that would mean noone could be truly anonymous, but I suspect that who really wanted to be so, could find a way to do so.

  27. Willard says:

    One simple way to be anonymous would be not to sign one’s comments.

    Think about what that means in our current situation. It’s about a letter. Signed. With names that carry authority.

    Try to create a letter like that without names. In fact, try to send a petition without names. Best of luck.

    There are other ways to protest anonymously against authorities. On the one hand there is snitching, which isn’t well received. On the other, there is whistle blowing, which is. It’s easy to conflate the two concepts. Many ClimateBall contrarians do.

  28. Jeffh says:

    Well, considering how rapidly our ‘culture’ is ‘canceling’ nature, I prefer to defer on this discussion. What it shows is that biodiversity does not have a voice. We continue to fiddle (and bicker) while Rome burns.

  29. Joshua says:

    I’m mostly with Paul.

    There’s not much new here. “Cancel culture” has been around for a long time. For example, many of those concernedabout cancel culture may have missed, or did they ignore, Vindman retiring from the military because he was retaliated against and bullied for speaking out honestly about matters in national defense. Yhrre us cancel culture and then there is manifest, concrete, and longstanding power imbalances and institutional discrimination – which is like cancel culture on steroids.

    Mustn’t lose sight of a few factors, imo. One is that while I think there have undoubtedly been examples of over-reach with unacceptable consequences, they amount to noise amid the signal of more people gaining more voice and more agency than ever before. The second is that of course people who were born into a privileged status will feel threatened when the power balance shifts. Again, that’s not an excuse for poor, or dangerous behavior – but it is part of the overall picture. And it’s important to consider how the shift on power balance looks from the side of those who have been denied agency forever.

    I think there is a balance that needs to be struck.

    I thought this article lent an interesting perspective.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/158346/willful-blindness-reactionary-liberalism

  30. Dmitry Shultz says:

    >Think about what that means in our current situation. It’s about a letter. Signed. With names that carry authority.

    This is rather exception than the common practice. Cancelling someone usually follows this:

    1. Some well known (and probably paid for doing this) activist posts the trigger post
    2. This post is ‘amplified’ by the mostly anonymous mod – it creates a perception of ‘everybody are on board’ with canceling
    3. The work place HR of the target person is contacted by ‘concerned’ mob (same one that amplified the trigger)
    4. Some ‘social justice warrior’ planted in the HR validates the trigger post and all the accusations and promises doom and gloom if it’s not ‘handled’
    5. HR is scared and doesn’t know how to deal with the situation. The decision is made to sacrifice the ‘target’ for the sake of the saving ‘company image’.

  31. Joshua says:

    Some of the most rude and uncharitable people I’ve come across in the Interwebs have attached their names to their vitriol. And they often foment mob-like behaviors. Some folks from WUWT come to mind.

    I don’t think anonymity explains much of anything.

  32. jacksmith4tx says:

    aTTP,
    I am interested in examples of why being anonymous in a virtual reality like the internet are needed. I can think of examples for the real world but on the internet it seems the harm out weighs the good. Real (physical) world exceptions might include whistle blowers, witness protection, etc.
    I mentioned blockchain above but to be a bit more precise maybe combination of DNA, blockchain and bio-metric sensors.
    Thanks for posting this.
    Jack Smith, Benbrook TX

  33. Jack,
    The harm may outweight the good. I also didn’t say it’s needed, just that there may be valid reasons. There are certainly academics who’ve chosen to be pseudonymous in order to separate their online and professional personas (I did this for a while). There’s also this story that I found quite compelling.

    What I guess I really mean is pseudonymous, rather than anonymous. True anonymity is probably difficult, but I don’t have any real problem with people choosing to engage online under a pseudonym. Ideally they chose one and stick with it. That way, even if you don’t know their real name, you can still associate them with what they’ve said/promoted online.

  34. Willard says:

    > Cancelling someone usually follows this: […]

    Your 2 is false, Dmitry, as most cases I know involve people known within the field. Your 3 is thus false too, as formal complaints aren’t anonymous. Your 4 is a known conspiracy among Freedom Fighters.

    When Bret emails Dave’s boss at 9pm, it’s not to make chit chat. This is what canceling looks like. This case should suffice to falsify the pattern you describe. And it’s obvious that Bret’s name is the only reason why this thing got any leg.

    Oh, and speaking of Bret:

  35. jacksmith4tx says:

    Joshua,
    The people who use their real names are subject to libel, plagiarism and slander laws and tend to choose their words a bit more carefully while the anonymous posters can say almost anything including inciting violence. The most outrageous comments are often the most ‘liked’ by the other anonymous users and it’s a vicious circle until some nut gets wound up and takes the hate and anger from the virtual to the real.

  36. Willard says:

    That’s not how it works, Jack:

    If you [“you” applies to both individuals and entities that access or use our Services] post Content, comment on a website, or otherwise make (or allow any third party to make) Content available on our Services, you are entirely responsible for the Content, and any harm resulting from, that Content or your conduct.

    https://wordpress.com/tos/

    AT’s the guy responsible here. So you bet he has an incentive for us to play nice.

  37. verytallguy says:

    “I am interested in examples of why being anonymous in a virtual reality like the internet are needed. ”

    So the nut jobs don’t come after you.

    Like Tol trying to cancel our host.

    Remember that?

  38. jacksmith4tx says:

    Willard,
    I know all about TOS, only applies if you are in the lower cast. Politicians seem to be the exception.
    Have you ever visited The Last Refuge (AKA theconservativetreehouse dot com)? It’s a frequent source of memes echoed by FOX and then Trump and has led to actual violence and deaths.
    If you are in Europe have a look at ratburger dot org
    Notice I did not use URLs so bots and scrapers should miss the links and create a vector between aTTP and them.

  39. vtg,
    You might be being ironic, but I don’t think Tol did anything that I would call cancel.

  40. Willard says:

    I have a fairly good idea of the model you have in mind, Jack. Michael Tobis is worried about similar things. Even if you have unique identifiers, you still have to evaluate the claims being made, and then to either go with moderation or legal recourse.

    My point is that people who want to have comments down usually go after publishers. The big five are located in California, where you have the laxest free speech laws around. I suspect it is also why they need to pretend they do some moderation.

    Whatever identity you take online, the one who has money can coerce you into self-censorship.

  41. Dmitry Shultz says:

    Willard,

    May be in pure science filed 2 is not so common yet (because it’s hard for trolls to sound scientific), but everywhere else this is the tactic that is proved to be working. Even governments (Russia, China fabrics of trolls) are actively using it.
    With social media space formal complaints are not needed to be so formal anymore, it’s all about number of likes and retweets.
    Calling somebody a ‘bedbug’ without providing any context is not a joke – it is unprofessional at least, so i don’t see any problem with pointing this out to ‘whoever may/should be concerned’.

  42. jacksmith4tx says:

    In China they just deduct points from your Social Credit until they digitally delete you. This is the real danger of complete transparency since having bad governments is a feature of the human race.
    I have multiple email address but only one contains my real name and it’s on my own domain server and I never expose it to open access web sites. Even when trying to do it right there are always bugs in the system:
    https://krebsonsecurity.com/2020/07/e-verifys-ssn-lock-is-nothing-of-the-sort/

  43. Willard says:

    > it’s all about number of likes and retweets.

    I see. Then it’s not about official canceling, but about klout. So let’s put things into perspectives.

    When Jesse quote-tweets someone, that’s a potential of 65K flying monkeys:

    This kind of behavior is very bad, and Jesse should own when he does that a bit more than his “who? me?” from today. But that’s not canceling as I see it.

    Now, besides a lot of money, JK Rowling haz 14.3 millions followers. Even dril pales in comparison.

    Imagine when JK sends her flying monkeys. Even when she scrubs the tweets they find their target.

    Anyone who cringes about being called a bed bug should live one week as a woman on teh Internet.

  44. Joshua says:

    Jack –

    > The people who use their real names are subject to libel, plagiarism and slander laws and tend to choose their words a bit more carefully while the anonymous posters can say almost anything including inciting violence. The most outrageous comments are often the most ‘liked’ by the other anonymous users and it’s a vicious circle until some nut gets wound up and takes the hate and anger from the virtual to the real

    I get the logic that people would feel more free to libel someone when writing comments anonymously, but I just haven’t observed that anonymity has any significant explanatory power. I’m open to the possibility that some real evidence exists, but I haven’t seen any.

    The reason that I even care about the argument is only because “you’re anonymous” is a convenient as hominem for people to use to dismiss criticism. It’s as if they think that an ad hom with a name attached is less ad homish than an ad hom written anonymously. Looks like self-sealing logic to me.

  45. David B Benson says:

    https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/711/sixth-mass-extinction?page=1#post-7010
    Whole species and families thereof being canceled, forever. Mentioned are lemurs and the North Atlantic Right Whale, others.

  46. jacksmith4tx says:

    David,
    Did you see this?
    https://phys.org/news/2020-07-regime-shift-arctic-ocean-scientists.html
    Note the rate of change!
    “Arrigo and colleagues found that NPP in the Arctic increased 57 percent between 1998 and 2018. That’s an unprecedented jump in productivity for an entire ocean basin. More surprising is the discovery that while NPP increases were initially linked to retreating sea ice, productivity continued to climb even after melting slowed down around 2009. “The increase in NPP over the past decade is due almost exclusively to a recent increase in phytoplankton biomass,” Arrigo said.”

    The study centers on net primary production (NPP), a measure of how quickly plants and algae convert sunlight and carbon dioxide into sugars that other creatures can eat. “The rates are really important in terms of how much food there is for the rest of the ecosystem,” Arrigo said. “It’s also important because this is one of the main ways that CO2 is pulled out of the atmosphere and into the ocean.”

    A more productive Arctic means more food for lots of animals. But many animals that have adapted to live in a polar environment are finding life more difficult as the ice retreats.”

    Phytoplankton growth may also peak out of sync with the rest of the food web because ice is melting earlier in the year. Add to that the likelihood of more shipping traffic as Arctic waters open up, and the fact that the Arctic is simply too small to take much of a bite out of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. “It’s taking in a lot more carbon than it used to take in,” Arrigo said, “but it’s not something we’re going to be able to rely on to help us out of our climate problem.”

    There are two sides to this explosion of plankton. In most aquatic ecosystems large algae blooms are followed by oxygen depletion and dead zones.

  47. Willard says:

  48. Dmitry Shultz says:

    Willard,

    There is nothing wrong with people calling out ‘trans-parasites’/sickos (Jessica Yaniv https://thepostmillennial.com/the-truth-about-jessica-yaniv-is-beginning-to-emerge) or stating the facts (for ex. trans people have huge biological advantage in woman sports) – this is not cancelling and a lot of real trans people support this. Also, contrary to the ‘mob canceling’ there is always invitation to sort things out and have a discussion, nobody usually takes it (probably because the outcome is so obvious) but this is another story.

  49. Willard says:

    Dmitry,

    You’re citing The Post Millenial:

    On its About page, the site dubs itself “your reasonable alternative,” with a mission to “accurately and adequately report Canadian news events as they unfold and progress.”

    But a CBC/Radio-Canada investigation found poor transparency around its political ties — for one thing, many of its writers have openly campaigned for conservative politicians — and unanswered questions about its journalistic standards and funding model.

    The site covers national and regional news, as well as some sports and culture stories, and has a robust opinion section that features major conservative voices including Barbara Kay and Spencer Fernando.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/the-post-millennial-journalism-conservative-advocacy-1.5191593

    Now that we’ve established that canceling has very little to do with anonymity and a lot to do with power imbalance, most especially of the hippie punching kind, I suggest we set other stories aside even for the sake of apophasis.

  50. Dmitry Shultz says:

    Willard,

    There are multiple ways cancelling is/can be done. Anonimity is just the most convenient way to do it online when there is not much intellectual power to support doing it with the name (can be considered as imbalance, but it is intellectual imbalance).

  51. Dmitry Shultz says:

    CBC lost all the credibility among Canadians, without government subsidy they will not survive 2 weeks. So, their reporting should be perceived more like propaganda (not the journalism).

  52. Willard says:

    > CBC lost all the credibility among Canadians

    I’m Canadian, Dmitry, and I duly submit that you do not speak for me.

    Now, please step away slowly from the horse.

  53. David B Benson says:

    jacksmith4tx, yes, I noticed that and linked to the article on the BNC Discussion Forum.

  54. Willard says:

    Oh, and I completely forgot that I already have “but anonymous”:

    https://climateball.net/but-anonymous/

  55. Steven Mosher says:

    “f I understand cancel culture, maybe Spacey was cancelled as an actor and for roles because of reports of his sexual offenses. I just reviewed the Spacey story here and it does sound very, very bad.”

    last night the Seoul mayor vanished.
    I told my GF, I bet he cancelled himself because of metoo.

    I was right

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/seoul-mayor-found-dead-after-metoo-allegations/ar-BB16xEdm

    Todays argument is how much of a genius I am and how I knew.

  56. Steven Mosher says:

    Now having spent time in places with much less freedom of speech, and stricter speech codes,
    I am of the opinion that I prefer the state run cancel culture as opposed to the mob run
    cancel culture.

    I’ll just use malaysia as an example. I know, in advance, that talking shit about the royal family
    will land me in jail. clear bright lines, and some sort of due process, and after I serve my time
    I would have paid my dues.

    contrast that with mob run cancel culture. No statute of limitations on past bad speech, no clear
    codes on what counts as forbidden, the mob acts as investigator, DA, judge and jury, and they impose a punishment.

    Given a choice between stricter laws about what speech is permissable, and the judgement of the mob.. the choice is pretty simple.

  57. Steven Mosher says:

    It’s not only what you say that will enrage the mob,
    if the mob demands you must speak, even silence is violence

  58. Joshua says:

    > the choice is pretty simple.

    Classic authoritarians would prefer state abuse of power rather than over-reach by those who have never had power.

    One maintains the status quo, and the other overturns it. Those with privilege have more to lose with the one compared to the other.

  59. Joshua says:

    Shame-based cultures have advantages and disadvantages. Korea has had a shame-based culture for hundreds of years. No metoo necessary.

  60. Joshua says:

    Steven –

    Thanks for that tweet link. Led me to this one:

  61. Willard says:

    > They know the Mott & Bailey implications of the phrase “Asian Silence is Violence.”

    Melissa’s pinned tweet:

  62. Steven Mosher says:

    “In China they just deduct points from your Social Credit until they digitally delete you.”

    compared to the cancel culture of twitter the chinese approach is a model of civility and due process and rationality. Makes perfect sense.

    here is what you dont know. There has always been a social credit system, an informal, often unspoken system by which certain people are included and valorized while others are excluded. People literally keep track of each other, collecting bits of gossip, rumors, records of past bad actions.. All china is doing is making the invisible visible, making the informal system into a formal one. Making a subjective assesement (“he’s a bum) into a formal score: he’s a 347.5 bum.

    The rules for exclusion vary cluture to culture, but there are always lines, albeit vague and changing in some cases, marking what is allowed and what is not allowed. We make up fancy myths to justify where we draw these lines and who can draw these lines, but there is always a cancel culture of some sort. So, it’s ok for the mob to regulate speech, it’s ok for business to fire people for shit they say or said years ago, but the government should be restrained in it’s power?. weird. Like it matters whether you are cancelled by the mob, your boss, or the court.

    bottom line is it is really not about freedom of speech, it’s about who draws the lines, who decides the punishment, who inflicts the sentence, and whether or not any rehabilitation/re education is possible. The thought police should not be brutal I would think.

  63. Joshua says:

    > I am of the opinion that I prefer the state run cancel culture as opposed to the mob run
    cancel culture.

    King George III of ENGLAND, 1775

  64. Willard says:

    FWIW, it’s also in Hobbes:

    This [the social contract] is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all, in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man, in such manner, as if every man should say to every man, I (2) authorise and (1) give up my right of governing myself, to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou (1) give up thy right to him, and (2) authorize all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so (2) united in one person, is called a commonwealth, in Latin civitas.

    http://carneades.pomona.edu/2016f-Political/04.HobbesSocialContract.html

  65. Steven Mosher says:

    it is simple Joshua.
    In malaysia I know exactly what NOT to say. Prior notice, clear law, easy to obey.
    And the sentence is spelled out. And there is a process of sorts. And I am sure after you do your
    time you have paid your debt to society you are re integrated.

    Thats way more civilized than being mobbed by twitter.

    put another way, the criminal process is way more fair than the informal social process of cancelling people. Because we have and will continue to cancel people for a variety of arbitrary reasons.
    cancel them for what they do, what they dont do, what they say and what they dont say.

  66. Willard says:

    If one prefers Mill:

  67. Joshua says:

    Steven –

    There’s a balance to stroke, for sure.

    But I’d argue that your comparison is absurd:

    –snip–
    (Bangkok, June 10, 2020) – Malaysia’s new administration is increasingly using abusive laws to investigate and prosecute speech critical of the government, Human Rights Watch said today. Since the Perikatan Nasional coalition took over the federal government in early March 2020, the authorities have sharply heightened investigations of individuals under broadly worded laws that violate the right to freedom of expression.

    “Like flicking a light switch, Malaysian authorities have returned to rights-abusing practices of the past, calling journalists, activists, and opposition figures into police stations to be questioned about their writing and social media posts,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The government should stop trying to return to the bad old days and revise the laws to meet international standards.”

  68. anoilman says:

    Dmitry Shultz says: “CBC lost all the credibility among Canadians, without government subsidy…” I’m not sure where you’re going with that. I quite like CBC myself, and its cheaper to subsidize than oil in Canada.

    I have a little experiment for you. Next time you buy a newspaper, open it up, and look through it. Look at all the ads, and everything being advertised. Then I want you to realize that what is really advertised and sold is you.

    Papers live for profits. Its a hard world out there, and reporters are expensive. And.. if you’re unhappy with the stories in your paper you can cancel your subscription. They might even sigh a bit and say good bye. But if an advertiser worth millions threatens to pull an ad campaign over a story, consider it done. Story canceled.

    At this rate Canada will only have opinion pieces, cat GIFs, and CBC reporting solid facts.

  69. Dmitry Shultz says:

    Willard,

    I’m Canadian too! Also, I’m the one that don’t like the smell of Socialism (probably because I was born and raised in USSR). Government sponsored media means brainwashing, especially when government (PM) sucks 😉

  70. Joshua says:

    Dmitry –

    > Government sponsored media means brainwashing

    As compared to what? Which media doesn’t mean brainwashing, in your opinion?

  71. Dmitry Shultz says:

    anoilmam,

    I just got my first issue of Epoch Times delivered yesterday. There is hardly any advertisement and these guys don’t need to sell anything to me except of their product which is journalism, independent, free and patriotic – exactly how it supposed to be.
    CBC is full of crap, some example (read the comments too) https://www.cowichanvalleycitizen.com/opinion/cbc-wrong-in-story-on-epoch-times/

  72. Steven Mosher says:

    Jk rowling has way too many followers. we need a redistribution of followers.
    No account should have more followers than people followed. And banish blue check marks.

    as for anonymity.
    In Korea you need to identify yourself in your posts. That, combined with laws against spreading rumors about people, somewhat curtails internet bullying.
    But Still people cancel themselves when others bully them online. Kinda extreme.

    https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2019/11/07/Suicide-of-K-pop-star-Sulli-puts-spotlight-on-cyberbullying/4371573147309/

    IU sings about her dead friend Sulli here. ( and dead friend Goo hara as well– hara is the lizard )

  73. Steven Mosher says:

    “But I’d argue that your comparison is absurd:”

    sounds like brandon’s schollenbergers “nonsense” objections

    Argumentum ad lapidem

    Like I said, Given a choice between a government imposed speech code and a mob imposed one
    I will choose ( and have choosen) the government imposed one. yes, there will be abuses of power.
    You prefer the mob enforced shaming and exile. Go figure, you are closer to the mob’s views than I am. it’s not like there is a rational basis for any of this.

  74. David B Benson says:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times
    Wierd broadsheet. No wonder that there not many advertisers.

  75. Joshua says:

    > You prefer the mob enforced shaming and exile.

    I prefer neither one nor the other.

    They aren’t two sides of a coin. We don’t have to choose.

    The comparison is absurd because the scale isn’t comparable.

  76. jacksmith4tx says:

    You know they will have this all figured out by the time we go full immersive VR with neural implants.

  77. Willard says:

    > At this rate Canada will only have opinion pieces, cat GIFs, and CBC reporting solid facts.

    Don’t forget Rex Murphy.

    Damn socialist!

  78. Steven Mosher says:

    They aren’t two sides of a coin. We don’t have to choose.

    The comparison is absurd because the scale isn’t comparable.
    ###################################

    Of course you have to choose. Gosh who knew that assertions can be met with counter assertions.
    of course the scale is comparable.

    Unless you live absolutely alone somewhere where we cannot find you, you will find yourself in
    human society. Which means, you will not be allowed to do or say as you please.
    You will be subject to the power and control of others to varying degrees. wishing away power
    is a nice wish, the question is whose subject will you be?

    When the mayor of a city ( fremont 60% asian I would guess) can be mobbed and harrassed for her silence, “asian silence”, that should be a clue to ordinary folks that it is time to beat feet.
    no class is protected from the mob

  79. anoilman says:

    Dmitry… Its hard to imagine what the basis for your reality is. You managed to find a letter\opinion piece… sounds… serious. Stop the press? But at least you agree that your local newspaper is only concerned with selling you to advertisers.

    Epoch Times smelled of conspiracy theory, long long before COVID broke out. In case you’re curious, every single epidemiologist on the planet knows about the concerns with wet markets, cross species diseases, and in particular how that might play out with Chinese Traditional Medicine. This is why they constantly monitor what is happening china.

    But if you think its all made up by the evil ‘they’ at CBC, then I don’t know what to say.
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/epoch-times-coronavirus-bioweapon-1.5548217

    Oh and socialism is just fine, and you’d hate pure capitalism. Watch Sicko to get a good feel for that.

    Willard you can’t bring up Rex Murphy without mentioning Ezra Levant.

  80. David B Benson says:

    Steven Mosher — According to Wikipedia, Fremont CA is about 50% asian.

  81. verytallguy says:

    “You might be being ironic, but I don’t think Tol did anything that I would call cancel”

    I recall him writing to your university to try and have some sanction applied to you?

    Maybe I mis remembered, apologies if so.

    Anyway, the point I was making is that there’s plenty of nutters out there, and pseudanonymity is a little protection against them.

  82. He didn’t ever write, as far as I’m aware. You have reminded me that he did include them in a tweet. Nothing ever came of that.

  83. angech says:

    “here is what you don’t know. There has always been a social credit system, an informal, often unspoken system by which certain people are included and valorized while others are excluded. People literally keep track of each other, collecting bits of gossip, rumors, records of past bad actions.. All china is doing is making the invisible visible, making the informal system into a formal one.”
    Very well put.
    America seems to be going through a testing time at the moment.
    Reminds me of a two year old child testing the boundaries.
    What can I get away with? Whom can I cancel?
    I had a great experience the other day. An older person who was quite conservative when I worked with him years ago has become extra caring of the community and much more socialist in his views. He just found he could tolerate other people’s views better.
    Life and Climate science and Cancel culture all fit into a bigger picture of constant searching for identity and truth. The bigger picture is accepting what life throws our way.
    I know that the swings and roundabouts usually mean that if the balance is wrong in time we will reach the goals that suit most of us, or should that be us most of all.

  84. lerpo says:

    Is Roger Pielke Jr. leaving FiveThirtyEight an example of cancel culture?

  85. lerpo,
    I think it is according to Roger, although he may not appreciate people pointing out that 538 apologised on his behalf because of the apparently threatening emails he sent to Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth.

  86. Eventual_Horizon says:

    Cancel Culture in the US is now close to being a political purge. Just without the firing squads (so far). Consider that the stepmother of one of the Atlantic police officers was fired. Or that an LA Galaxy soccer player was fired for something his wife tweeted. Or how university professors fear to say anything remotely critical of the BLM narrative. See here: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/16/berkeley-condemns-letter-on-blm-sent-by-anonymous-history-professor-that-called-for-free-speech-and-academic-freedom/

    This is frightening social terrain where political purity tests are administered at random. It has emboldened leftist paramilitary groups in the US such as the NFAC to openly demand the formation of ethno-states.

    It might all seem like a moment of social excess but the road to hell begins somewhere.

  87. Eventual,
    Those may all be unjustifiable outcomes, but have you put this into some kind of context? How often does this actually happen? What rights do employers have if an employee does something that they then think might influence their business? Should they stand up for free speech, or can they simply decide that the best thing for them is just to fire the employee? As far as I can tell, the power currently lies more with populist movements that are right leaning than with leftists who call for the formation of ethno-states (I’ve neither heard of the NFAC and am not even sure what an ethno state is). Are you sure you’ve fairly assessed the significance of this?

    Given that the current president of the USA is Donald Trump, it really is hard for me to be that what should fear are left-leaning social movements that are being pushed by organisations few people have even heard of.

  88. Willard says:

    Eventual,

    Sock puppets are frowned upon. No armed Black man will hurt you if you stick to one and only one name. If you could also mind the slippery slopes (like audits, they never end), that’d be great.

  89. Doug says:

    Honest American academics who come to conclusions unfavorable to the Left must learn from what academics in the Soviet Union did: keep quiet, and maybe … get your results published in a free country, anonymously. Don’t even confide in your close colleagues, because of course there will be a few who find it personally advatageous to turn you in. Those will be not only the ones who are currently kneeling to the mob, and writing slimy justifications for them, but people who are taking a “on the one hand this, but on the other hand that” position.

    And here’s a word you will want to be familiar with: thoughtcrime. Soon, it will be used without irony.

  90. So in 2010 when an anonymous person phoned my supervisor’s supervisor at the solar power company where I worked and denounced me for having co-written a book criticizing a handful of climate scientists, demanded that I be fired (I wasn’t)–what was that?

  91. Joshua says:

    > This is frightening social terrain where political purity tests are administered at random. It has emboldened leftist paramilitary groups in

    There is much concern about this issue.

    But much of it is quite selective. I’m still waiting to see folks on “the right” to express their concernabout “the most powerful man in the world” using state power to enforce his political preferences and to prevent people from criticizing him. And then, if course, at a more mundane level….

    –snip–
    August 2012: Trump says Black journalist Touré, then a co-host of the MSNBC show “The Cycle,” should be “forced to resign” for comments in which Touré uttered a variant of the N-word while arguing that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was using racially coded language to try to make President Barack Obama seem frightening. (Touré had apologized before Trump’s demand.)

    November 2012: Trump suggests the firing of then-MSNBC host Chris Matthews for saying, on the night of Obama’s victory, that he was “so glad” Hurricane Sandy had occurred, because of its political impact. (Matthews had apologized before Trump’s suggestion.)

    December 2012: Trump calls for the firing of Vanity Fair magazine Editor Graydon Carter, with whom he had feuded for years, over what he declares the magazine’s “worst ever issue.”

    December 2012: Trump says “Scots should boycott Glenfiddich garbage” because the whisky brand selected Michael Forbes, a farmer who refused to sell his land to make way for a Trump golf course, as “Top Scot” of the year.

    March 2013: Trump says, “Everyone should cancel HBO until they fire low life dummy Bill Maher! Get going now and feel good about yourself!”

    July 2013: Trump asks people to “boycott & cancel subscriptions” to Rolling Stone magazine because of a cover featuring Boston Marathon terrorist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

    October 2013: Trump urges “everybody possible” to “cancel their subscription” to New York Magazine over an insulting tweet about Trump’s marriage from Dan Amira, who was online editor at the time.

    March 2014: After Trump is left off a CNBC list of the most influential business leaders, he says, “Stupid poll should be canceled—no credibility.”

    May 2014: Trump calls for the firing of, or at least an apology from, the person at The Oklahoman newspaper who wrote a headline calling then-Oklahoma City Thunder NBA star Kevin Durant “Mr. Unreliable.” (The newspaper had already apologized.)

    June 2014: Trump says people should “Boycott Mexico” until a Marine reservist who was jailed for crossing the border with loaded guns is released from prison. (He was released later in the year.)

    April 2015: Trump suggests that conservative writer Jonah Goldberg, then a senior editor of National Review magazine, should be forced to resign for writing that Trump had been “tweeting like a 14-year-old girl” in response to another conservative writer calling Trump a clown. Trump also suggests Fox News anchor Bret Baier should stop having Goldberg on his show.

    June 2015: When Spanish-language television network Univision severed its business relationship with Trump after his campaign launch speech, in which he labeled Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists, Trump tweets, “Anyone who wants strong borders and good trade deals for the US should boycott @Univision.”

    July 2015: Trump calls for a boycott of Macy’s after Macy’s discontinued its business dealings with him over those same comments about people from Mexico. Trump also tweets “Great” when someone tells him that people are canceling their Macy’s credit cards.

    August 2015: Trump calls for the firing of the late conservative writer and Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer, a regular Trump critic.

    September 2015: After National Review editor Rich Lowry argued on Fox News that rival Republican candidate Carly Fiorina had “cut off (Trump’s) balls with the precision of a surgeon” in a primary debate, Trump says: “Incompetent @RichLowry lost it tonight on @FoxNews. He should not be allowed on TV and the FCC should fine him!” (Lowry responds, “I love how Mr. Anti-PC now wants the FCC to fine me. #pathetic.”)

    December 2015: Trump calls for the firing of then-CBS News journalist Sopan Deb and NBC/MSNBC journalist Katy Tur over reporting he disputed about how he handled protesters during a rally speech.

    February 2016: Trump says people should “boycott all Apple products” until the company stops fighting a government request to break into the cell phone of a deceased California terrorist.

    February 2016: Trump says Fox News should fire Republican strategist and commentator Karl Rove for being insufficiently positive about his victory in the Nevada caucuses.

    February 2016: Trump calls on the Wall Street Journal to fire its editorial board, which had criticized him, and its pollster, which showed results he didn’t like.

    March 2016: Trump proposes a boycott of Megyn Kelly’s Fox News show, complaining that it is too negative toward him.

    September 2016: After the Dallas Morning News and Arizona Republic newspapers endorse Hillary Clinton for president and USA Today declares Trump unfit for the office, Trump says, “The people are really smart in cancelling subscriptions to the Dallas & Arizona papers & now USA Today will lose readers! The people get it!”

    September 2017: Trump tweets that NFL players and other athletes who don’t stand for the National Anthem should be told, “YOU’RE FIRED.” He says in another tweet, “Fire or suspend!” And at a rally, he says, “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners when somebody disrespects our flag to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out, he’s fired, he’s fired.’ ”

    October 2017: Suggesting he could use the power of the state against media entities he dislikes, Trump muses about challenging the broadcast licenses of NBC and other networks over their news coverage. (He again broached the subject of reviewing NBC’s license in September 2018.)

    November 2017: Trump calls for a boycott of CNN.

    August 2018: Trump tweets, “Many @harleydavidson owners plan to boycott the company if manufacturing moves overseas. Great! Most other companies are coming in our direction, including Harley competitors.”

    June 2019: Trump suggests people stop “using or subscribing” to AT&T to pressure the company to make changes at CNN, which it owns.

    September 2019: Trump suggests that actress Debra Messing should be fired for calling on a news outlet to publish the names of people attending a Trump fundraiser and for a tweet promoting a church sign that said “a black vote for Trump is mental illness.” (Messing had apologized for the tweet about the church sign.)

    January 2020: Trump says The New York Times should fire columnist Paul Krugman, a winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, for having incorrectly predicted a global recession after Trump’s victory in 2016.

    May 2020: The day after Twitter appended a fact check link to dishonest Trump claims about mail-in voting, Trump threatens to shut down social media companies: “Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen.”

    May 2020: Trump seeks the firing of Chuck Todd, host of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” for the show playing a misleadingly shortened clip of comments by Attorney General William Barr. (Todd apologized, saying it was an inadvertent mistake.) Again broaching the power of the state, Trump tags the accounts of the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates television, and its chairman, Ajit Pai.

  92. Tom,
    That’s a terrible thing to happen and it’s a good thing that your company didn’t respond. I do think, though, that we should be careful of claiming that such things are indicative of some kind of “cancel culture”.

  93. Joshua says:

    Lest I (horror) be accused of “they did it first”-ism (which could have some merit), I will say that I think there’s a legitimate issue at hand, here.

    The problem is that cynical political exploitation of the issue doesn’t foster progress. It only further burries the legitimate questions at hand beneath a mound of outgroup homogeneity.

    The most interesting aspect is thst so many people seem blind to that counter-effect. I don’t doubt that there’s some level of sincere concern – yet so many seem so oblivious to easily predictable outcomes.

    One of the things I liked about thst New Republic article I linked that it points out that for all the predictions of how “identity politics” was the death knell for “the left,” we’ve actually seen a rather remarkable societal progression in the direction of what that “identity politics” was targeting to achieve.

  94. Willard says:

    Is this canceling:

    The next clarion call will be for those who wrote the code that crunched raw temperature data to explain the decisions they made for the adjustments to the numbers.

    From the above-mentioned book, page 180, under the Infant Science, Infantile Scientists heading.

  95. Joshua says:

    Tom –

    > So in 2010 when an anonymous person phoned my supervisor’s supervisor at the solar power company where I worked and denounced me for having co-written a book criticizing a handful of climate scientists, demanded that I be fired (I wasn’t)–what was that?

    I’m going to guess that it was by an effort to hold you accountable by a person who thought you wrote a book that deliberately distorts a series of events in order to discredit hard-working, honest scientists.

  96. Joshua says:

    Anders –

    I’m curious – if you recall – how did you feel when Tol talked of writing a letter to your supervisors?

  97. Dmitry Shultz says:

    anoilmam,

    Socialism is Gulag, not sure what is so ‘fine’ about it.
    COVI-19 coverage by CBC is a great example of propaganda. I sent you just the first link that loudly outlines this, here is another one https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/05/01/wuhan-lab-as-coronavirus-source-gains-traction/
    There are many more.

  98. Eventual_Horizon says:

    [No sock puppet, Eventual. Thanks. -W]

  99. Willard says:

    > there’s plenty of nutters out there, and pseudanonymity is a little protection against them.

    Perhaps like this one.

  100. Willard says:

    Dmitry,

    You’re red baiting. Please desist.

  101. izen says:

    The new media has enabled the lower orders to have more influence on their ‘betters’ than in the past.
    Cue an outcry of ‘thoughtcrime’, ‘free speech’ ‘censorship’.
    No such complaints that there is a new social danger when religious schools fire staff for deviating from the One True Path, or Cuccineli stalking Mann… the victim-hood is strong in this. Its the whinge that the hippies are bashing back….

    For a good take on this that is simply titled –
    ‘Canceled’ = Disgraced
    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2020/07/09/canceled-disgraced/

  102. dikranmarsupial says:

    Tom I agree that is a bad thing. They should have limited themselves to point out that the book was ridiculousLy adversarial analysis revealing the authors cognitive biases, rather than anything else.

    Fortunately nobody was calling for those scientists to be sacked or excluded from the debate on climate change…

  103. Joshua,

    I’m curious – if you recall – how did you feel when Tol talked of writing a letter to your supervisors?

    I don’t actually recall Tol ever suggesting that. I do recall emailing my Head of School many years ago to let them know that they might get some email complaining about me. They responded that they would reopen their nutters folder.

  104. Joshua says:

    Anders –

    Thanks.

    So I’m trying to figure all of this out. You said you thought it was terrible that someone wrote a letter to complain about Tom. Dikran agrees it was a bad thing. My instinct is to think it’s repulsive as well.

    But why? What is the moral taxonomy that makes it bad? Someone presumably thought that Tom’s book was malignant in effect, and I would guess intent. I’m guessing not only w/r/t the careers of the scientists he criticized in the book, but presumably w/r/t the whole freakin’ planet.

    So, is there some construct whereby writing a letter to his boss is immoral? What is it? Simply the golden rule? Something else? In the context of the faux concern about canceling, mixed with what I consider legitimate concern, along with the incessant whining about censorship thst is non-censorship, and cynical leveraging of legitimate concerns about freedom of speech for the sake of political expediency, I’m trying to get a better grasp on a framework for why I (and others) reflexively think what happened to Tom is wrong.

    Help would be appreciated.

  105. Joshua says:

    Oy. I finally gave up html tags… but I couldn’t stick with it could I?

  106. Cancel this culture … please …
    AP: Catholic Church Lobbied for Taxpayer Funds, Got $1.4B
    https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-07-10/ap-after-lobbying-catholic-church-won-14b-in-virus-aid
    “The U.S. Roman Catholic Church used a special and unprecedented exemption from federal rules to amass at least $1.4 billion in taxpayer-backed coronavirus aid, with many millions going to dioceses that have paid huge settlements or sought bankruptcy protection because of clergy sexual abuse cover-ups.”

  107. RickA says:

    Question – is the LA Galaxy player who got fired because of his wife’s racist posts an example of cancel culture?

    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-galaxy-player-fired-after-wife-makes-racist-comments-20200605-ny5dcvambbgixl2e7o3pqvkhcy-story.html

    I think so – although I am not sure there was a mob involved. Maybe just PR by the team.

    Still getting fired for something someone else said (even a spouse) seems wrong to me.

    I would argue that the reason the team did it was fear of the cancel culture – so maybe a cancel culture over-reaction?

  108. Joshua says:

    EH –

    I’d like to respond but first…

    Have you posted here, or elsewhere that I might have seen, under a different screenname? If so, what was it?

  109. Willard says:

    > Maybe just PR by the team.

    Think of it this way, RickA. If everyone had tenure, we would not have this exchange.

    You might like:

    We usually assume that “government” refers to state authorities. Yet the state is only one kind of government. Every organization needs some way to govern itself — to designate who has authority to make decisions concerning its affairs, what their powers are, and what consequences they may mete out to those beneath them in the organizational chart who fail to do their part in carrying out the organization’s decisions.

    Managers in private firms can impose, for almost any reason, sanctions including job loss, demotion, pay cuts, worse hours, worse conditions, and harassment. The top managers of firms are therefore the heads of little governments, who rule their workers while they are at work — and often even when they are off duty.

    https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/7/17/15973478/bosses-dictators-workplace-rights-free-markets-unions

    Libertarians have no idea what they’re asking.

    ***

    Joshua,

    Everett is not Eventual, if that’s what you’re asking. I also edited your HTML.

  110. Joshua says:

    Rick –

    > Still getting fired for something someone else said (even a spouse) seems wrong to me

    What would you suggest as a different response? If attendance suffers because people don’t want to watch a player whose wife says racist stuff – how should a team respond – given that their main reason to exist is to make money? Would you enforce, in some way, that teams follow your preferred response?

    What principle do you want to use to determine how a money-making enterprise, that relies directly on public popularity to make its money, should act in its efforts to make money? What mechanism would you use to control what they do? If you don’t think there should be one, then what does it actually mean for you to say that you don’t agree with their policy? Obviously, you wouldn’t think they should consult with you before they decide on their policies. So then wouldn’t that mean they should act in a way that they beleive best serves their fiscal interests?

  111. Joshua says:

    Willard –

    No… but I was curious as to the previous identity.

  112. RickA says:

    I think what happened to Tom in 2010 is an example of cancel culture (in my opinion).

    I think scientific papers being withdrawn because the author is (racist or fill in the blank) is also an example of cancel culture.

    ATTP – imagine if you pissed off the wrong crowd (i.e. the cancel culture crowd) and they tried to get every paper you ever published withdrawn because of what a bad person they thought you were (not because the paper was wrong). That is an example of cancel culture (in my opinion).

    In my opinion, if Hitler had written Einsteins 1905 paper (he didn’t) it shouldn’t be withdrawn because he is a monster and a bad person. If it is accurate and was published it should stay published. That is my opinion. Trying to negate true things because of the character of the person who discovered them is a very bad idea (it seems to me).

    It is a bit like trying to cancel a person because they believe that women cannot be men and visa versa. I think people should be able to say sex is a real thing and XY is not the same as XX – are we really going to allow people to get fired or ruined because a person believes a true thing?

    Very very scary.

  113. RickA says:

    Joshua asks “What would you suggest as a different response?”

    Well – I would look at the contract. Most sports contracts have a morality clause. It usually only covers what the player does or says – not third parties who are merely associated with the player (spouse, kids, parents, extended family, Kevin Bacon). I would think this player had a suit for wrongful termination – but they settled so that is probably not an issue (they reached a mutual decision . . .).

    My point is the desire to get rid of the player is a cancel culture reaction.

  114. Willard says:

    RickA,

    If you only have counterfactual thinking, then you have nothing left in your hand. Also, hypothetical Adolfs are best left to the Richard Dawkins of the possible worlds:

    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/03/28/richard-s-decoupling/

    Canceling happens not because of one’s identity, but because one is saying or doing silly stuff or worse. It the opinion of those who call the words or the actions out, that is.

    In my opinion, that “cancel culture” refers to anything specific is far from being clear. Unless of course that just means “I live in a society and I don’t like it”:

  115. dikranmarsupial says:

    Joshua “ What is the moral taxonomy that makes it bad?”

    The golden rule? When I do something wrong, I’d want the people I offended to be forgiving, or at least measured and proportionate in their responses.

    I suspect Tom’s “book” had little bearing on his ability to do his job – in other cases (c.f. David Starkey) that is not obviously true.

  116. RickA says:

    I think trying to control the words people are allowed to use is also an example of cancel culture.

    Example – the Judge in the case (East Coast somewhere) about the men running track as women ordered that the lawyers representing the women runners cannot refer to the men as men. They have to refer to the men as “transgender females”.

    That sort of control of words, seemingly a denial of reality, falls into the cancel culture area (in my opinion).

    What do you people think?

  117. izen says:

    @-Rick A
    ” If it is accurate and was published it should stay published. That is my opinion.”

    Your opinion is not followed by the medical profession.
    There was ‘research’ done during WW2 in Germany and Japan into the limits of the human response to extreme cold, low air pressure, blood loss etc.
    You will not find the results of this research readily available of cited in subsequent research.
    However potentially useful that knowledge might be, it has been largely abandoned because of its provenance.

  118. What I’m still not getting is what is this so-called Cancel Culture anyways? I see it as just another form of discrimination or to discriminate. A social media form of discrimination. For someone like myself, it looks sort of Tower of Babel and anarchistic. We all live in a police state of some form.

  119. RickA says:

    Izen:

    Good point. I had forgotten about that example.

    I just hope that Archimedes or other past geniuses didn’t own slaves.

    I hope they don’t try to tear down the pyramids because they were built with slave labor.

    Etc.

  120. Willard says:

    I think logic is the worst example of cancel culture. Just like critical thinking is the worst outcome of critical theory. And don’t start me about editing. The worst form of self-censoring.

    That reminds me of a ClimateBall player who by playing the ref would be trying to cancel the owner’s proprietary rights.

    Where am I going with this?

    No idea.

    The tears of the world are in equal quantity.

  121. Joshua says:

    Rick –

    > I think trying to control the words people are allowed to use is also an example of cancel culture.

    What is the dividing line between trying to control someone’s words and expressing an opinion about their use of words?

    At what point do you decide where the impact of your words is something over which you have some responsibility? Does someone not have a right to make it clear to you that they find your use of words offensive? Should you have some kind of shield to protect you against objections to what you say?

    What do you think about the ubiquitous clamor about people using the expression “Happy Holidays” rather than Merry Christmas? “. Do you think it is peope trying to control other people’s use of words? Is it an example of cancel culture? If not, why not?

  122. izen says:

    @-Rick A
    ” I would look at the contract. Most sports contracts have a morality clause.”

    A for profit business is a dictator in its own domain. At least as far as it is allowed to be by government regulation.
    If someone within that business threatens the profit, then the business will find SOME element of the contract they have that can justify cancelling the employment of that person.
    If the contract, or regulations prevent a simple “You’re fired” then they will look for some loophole, or in extremis simply make an offer the person cannot refuse in terms of a cash payoff or threat to blacklist to eliminate this threat to the profit of the enterprise.
    Examples are legion.

  123. Joshua says:

    Rock –

    Some examples of trying to control other people’s words:

    Criticizing concern about climate change because someone calls it climate change rather than global warming.

    Criticizing someone because the call you a denier rather than calling you a skeptic.

    Criticizing someone who uses the term
    ocean acidification rather than saying that the PH of oceana is decreasing.

    I could go on….

    Cancel culture?

  124. ” … editing. The worst form of self-censoring.”

    I self-censor myself all the time. I do it here I do it everywhere. Mainly because I don’t want to sound like a crazy person, even though I am a crazy person.

  125. Joshua says:

    > And don’t start me about editing. The worst form of self-censoring.

    If there were really any freedom of speech in the world, keyboards would come with no delete key.

  126. izen says:

    @-Rick A
    “I hope they don’t try to tear down the pyramids because they were built with slave labor.”

    Best evidence from grave sites and papyrus reports indicate the pyramids were built by a recruited skilled workforce.
    At worst it may have been like modern day army enlistment in some Nations.
    A two year stint of government work that was required of able bodied men.

  127. RickA says:

    joshua:

    No – none of those are examples of cancel culture.

    Now try to get the person fired, by organizing a mob of like minded people, in each of your examples – and that would be cancel culture (in my opinion).

  128. Joshua says:

    Rick –

    Aren’t those examples of trying to control someone’s words?

    Is trying to control someone’s words cancel culture?

    I have no idea what your definition of the term actually is.

  129. Joshua says:

    Rick –

    > I think trying to control the words people are allowed to use is also an example of cancel culture.

    So logically, you must think that those aren’t examples of trying to control someone’s words.

    Why not?

  130. RickA says:

    I guess I would say that expressing your opinion about how I say something isn’t the same thing as trying to ruin my life because of what I said. It is the ruining of the person’s life which is the cancel culture part. Getting someone fired or evicted or trying to lower their income or boycotting the person to reduce their income because of their speech is the cancel culture part.

  131. paulski0 says:

    RickA,

    the lawyers representing the women runners cannot refer to the men as men. They have to refer to the men as “transgender females”.

    Sounds like a pretty basic necessity for a fair hearing. If the case is in large part about whether or not the “transgender females” should be considered women it would be somewhat prejudicial to the case to refer to them as “men”.

    Do you think it would be reasonable in a murder trial if the prosecuting lawyer were able to refer to the defendant as “the murderer”?

  132. IMHO the use of the word mob in this post sort of sounds paranoid. They are out there to get me type of talk. Pitchfork and torches. Lynching. In other words, an explicit dog whistle.

  133. RickA says:

    paulskio:

    Not being able to refer to their sex, but being forced to use a gender term to refer to their sex, instead of their objective actual sex – is the problem.

    The case isn’t about what sex the men are.

    If the jury were to find that the men are transgender females – so be it.

    But their sex would still be male.

    Sex is not a state of mind – gender is (apparently).

    Their is no blood test for gender – but there is for sex.

  134. RickA says:

    Everett:

    I get what you are saying. However, the “culture” part of cancel culture refers to a group of people.

    It is the organizing of a bunch of people to try to ruin someones life that is the mob part.

    I admit it is a provocative term – because a mob is a negative thing. But a group of people trying to ruin a person’s life is a negative thing – isn’t it?

  135. Smart mob
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_mob
    “A smart mob is a group whose coordination and communication abilities have been empowered by digital communication technologies.[1] Smart mobs are particularly known for their ability to mobilize quickly.[1]”

    However. I’m not exactly sure about the use of the word smart above.

  136. Joshua says:

    Rick –

    > I guess I would say that expressing your opinion about how I say something isn’t the same thing as trying to ruin my life because of what I said. It is the ruining of the person’s life which is the cancel culture part. Getting someone fired or evicted or trying to lower their income or boycotting the person to reduce their income because of their speech is the cancel culture part.

    OK. To clarify… you said earlier –

    > > I think trying to control the words people are allowed to use is also an example of cancel culture.

    So do I take it that now you have changed your opinion. It isn’t merely trying to control someone language that makes cancel culture. It’s thing to ruin someone’s life for the language they’ve used…is that right?

    That raises more questions about how you’re making definitions, but I would like you to clarify this first.

    It would mean that you no longer have this opinion that you expressed above – since there is no ruining someone’s life involved.

    >> Example – the Judge in the case (East Coast somewhere) about the men running track as women ordered that the lawyers representing the women runners cannot refer to the men as men. They have to refer to the men as “transgender females”.

    That sort of control of words, seemingly a denial of reality, falls into the cancel culture area (in my opinion).

  137. RickA says:

    Joshua:

    Which is why I put my opinion out there and asked what people thought – whether my example fell into cancel culture.

    There is an implied threat of ruining of life because if a person disobeys the judge they can be fined or jailed. If a University requires a speaker to use someone’s preferred pronouns, the implied threat is they can be fired if they don’t comply.

    Let me clarify – cancel culture is attempting to control speech of others by ruining a person’s life for what they said, or trying to control non-libelous non-slanderous speech by force of law or policy. I am trying to distinguish speech which is already subject to money damages because it is libelous or slander.

  138. An_older_code says:

    @ ATTP “reopen their nutters folder”

    That made me laugh out loud, so true, these fruitcakes are also known as the “green ink brigade”

    @Joshua – thanks too

  139. izen says:

    @-Rick A
    “It is the ruining of the person’s life which is the cancel culture part.”

    ‘Ruin’ might be a little overstated.
    People have lost their position of employment and status. Or position of privilege.
    But usually as a result of their words or actions that have disgraced them in the eyes of the consumers that pay their wages.

    Consider the case of Tomi Lahren, a right-wing commentator on The Blaze. When she tweeted comparing BLM to the KKK thousands petitioned for her to be fired.
    She wasn’t.
    When later she said as a proponent of limited government and against government restrictions she was in favour of women having access to abortion…
    She was fired.

  140. paulski0 says:

    RickA,

    Not being able to refer to their sex, but being forced to use a gender term to refer to their sex, instead of their objective actual sex – is the problem.

    The case isn’t about what sex the men are.

    If the jury were to find that the men are transgender females – so be it.

    What you’ve written all seems quite confused about gender and sex. The case(s), as I understand it, concern whether transgender women (to clarify, I’ve never heard the phrase “transgender female”. It seems to mix up the whole sex/gender difference) should be able to compete in women’s events. The problem is that there isn’t a clear definition of what “a woman” is for the purposes of sport. See the Caster Semenya saga for example.

    Both sides nominally agree that the subjects of the case are transgender women. Hence the use of this neutral term for the purposes of the hearing. What is at issue is whether they can be considered women in the context of women’s sports.

    By the way, isn’t joining a mob trying to prevent such people competing in sport an example of cancel culture according to your definition?

  141. RickA says:

    izen:

    right. I should have said “try to ruin”. I should also have said based on what they said or someone associated with them said (because of the LA Galaxy example). The guilt by association example, when words of someone else are attributed to them and people try to ruin them by getting them fired, or forcing them to resign, etc.

  142. Joshua says:

    Rick –

    > Let me clarify – cancel culture is attempting to control speech of others by ruining a person’s life for what they said, or trying to control non-libelous non-slanderous speech by force of law or policy. I am trying to distinguish speech which is already subject to money damages because it is libelous or slander.

    Ok – so you’ve change your mind. That’s cool.

    I’m unclear because of the vagueness of your terms, and your definitions – but we seem to be making some progress.

    What does “trying to ruin [her] life mean? As an example, seems to me that if someone has a job where they’re dealing with a diverse public, and they make a statement that I think is racist, it’s not unreasonable for me to lobby that they no longer have that job. In other words, to be moved to a different job or fired. It wouldn’t be my goal to ruin that person’s life. It would be my goal to have them removed from that job.

    So there’s a question of intent. You seem to be assuming intent, when in fact the intent might be quite different than to “ruin [someo’s] life.”

    As an example, I recently complained to a store manager about a clerk who was rude and clearly not acting appropriately for the job. I wouldn’t have minded if that person was fired (after, first, the manger worked with her to help her improve her performance). But my intent certainly wasn’t to “ruin [her] life.

    I’m hoping you could clarify a bit more. What are you using to determine intent? How are you defining “ruin [someon’s] life?

    Also –

    > or trying to control non-libelous non-slanderous speech by force of law or policy.

    Seems to me that description would apply to much of that list of stuff Trump has done that I quoted above. Seem to me that logically, you’re equating Trump’s actions with “cancel culture.” Is that right?

  143. RickA says:

    paulskio said “Both sides nominally agree that the subjects of the case are transgender women. Hence the use of this neutral term for the purposes of the hearing. What is at issue is whether they can be considered women in the context of women’s sports.”

    Title 9 is “on the basis of sex” – not gender. So women is a sex term, not a gender term.

    So it seems reasonable to argue that transgender women cannot be women (i.e. sex term) if they are men (i.e. sex term). The case is about the sex of the runners, not their gender.

    The court is preventing them from using a sex term (men) and forcing them to use a gender term “transgender women”.

    Sorry about the “transgender female” term – I was going off memory and obviously got the two terms confused. Although to me they seem synonymous. In any event either is a gender term and not a sex term. Where women and men are clearly sex terms.

    Don’t we all agree that sex and gender are not the same thing?

  144. Joshua,

    So I’m trying to figure all of this out. You said you thought it was terrible that someone wrote a letter to complain about Tom. Dikran agrees it was a bad thing. My instinct is to think it’s repulsive as well.

    What I meant was more that it’s probably a terrible thing to go through. You would hope that most employers would judge people on the basis of how well they do their job, rather than on the basis of what might be said by some who are complaining about something that has nothing to do with their job.

    I think there was a comment earlier asking what I would think if some mob were pressurising my unversity to fire me. I think I would find it unpleasant, but I’m reasonably confident that my university would not bow to such pressure. If they did, I would probably be slightly more annoyed with them, than with those who were trying to get my fired (this hasn’t happened, just to be clear).

  145. Joshua says:

    It’s interesting because it seems to me there’s a lot of cross-over, I think, between “cancel culture” whatever that means, and “shame-based culture.” (enough caveats?).

    And THAT’S interesting because a lot of people who identify as “conservatives” seem to be in favor of more “shame-based culture.” Isn’t calling for a return to a shame-based culture often what is mean by “make ‘Merica great again?” Doesn’t “Make ‘Merica Great Again” essentially mean:

    “Let’s go back to a time when we have a more pervasive set of cultural norms, where people followed those cultural norms to everyone’s benefit, and where people didn’t violate those norms because they were ashamed to do so.”

    Isn’t that a lot of what is meant when people talk about going “back” to “Christian values?” Aren’t “Christian values” based – to a large degree – on “shaming” people?

    Yet, while seeming to want to go back to some putative “great” time when a shame-based culture was more pervasive, self-identified “conservatives” seem very upset about the ‘cancel culture” – which it seems to me is very much a shame-based phenomenon.

    Of course, in a similar way as I view many of the objections to the “cancel culture” as hypocritical and selective, I think there is a glaring problems with the call to going back to when ‘Merica was “great” – because when ‘Merica was great, it was a time when a select group of people had even more disproportionate power to influence the norms on which “shaming” took place.

    That said, I think there are some merits to a shame-based culture. Just as there are some demerits.

  146. izen says:

    @-Rick A
    “It is the ruining of the person’s life which is the cancel culture part.”

    If you spouse or life partner says or does something disgraceful and you fail to repudiate it, guilt by association is inevitable.
    Consider the Conways. George could be fired for the political advocacy of his wife, and vice versa for Kelly Ann.
    Both lead a precarious existence without making clear they do NOT share a common outlook !

  147. izen says:

    @-Joshua
    “…because when ‘Merica was great, it was a time when a select group of people had even more disproportionate power to influence the norms on which “shaming” took place.”

    The big difference is the ‘good old days’ it was the gays, deviants and coloureds who were shamed into a second class status. The male elite and religious authorities were the arbiters of who should be shamed.
    The ‘problem’ now is that it is those very lower class who are exercising the shame weapon against their previous oppressors.

  148. Willard says:

    So, who’s canceling who here:

  149. paulski0 says:

    RickA,

    Title 9 is “on the basis of sex” – not gender. So women is a sex term, not a gender term.

    Title 9 says “on the basis of sex” but absolutely does not state that this excludes actions on the basis of gender. Title 9 was written 40 years ago, before the use of the word “gender” became widespread. The notion of a difference between sex and gender just wasn’t considered at the time. It’s up to lawyers, judges and wider society to determine whether that law can also be considered to cover gender.

    But regardless of that, in current terminology it’s widely agreed that “male” and “female” are sex terms, “women” and “men” gender terms. And that’s not really even a recent thing, we just didn’t necessarily have a word for it before: We refer to non-human animals as male and female, not women and men.

  150. Openfordiscussion says:

    I see a lot of articles enabling the hysteria of these people. At the same time they feel neglected when they’re in everyone’s faces with their self righteousness but who knows what they could possibly hide themselves? We all make mistakes and maybe at some point held awful ideas. To go back into someone’s past and dismiss them in the present because of it, seems bizarre to me and nonsensical. Frankly it’s ridiculous. Sure, we can all have regrets, but why do people feel the need to now apologize for non issues, such as not having enough diversity on a show? Identity politics is deeply linked with cancel culture and it’s sad to see it. It seems people are losing their minds and not over important stuff either. People need to be in a place based on their skills not on their identity, then it all goes to shit.

  151. Willard says:

    If the thread could stay away from gender trolling, that’d be great.

    Socratic trolling is enough for now.

    Thanks.

  152. RickA says:

    Joshua:

    Your clerk example is missing one important factor – the organizing of a group of people. From your example, it sounds like your action only, and not an organized action by a group of people, trying to get the clerk fired.

    So I would not consider your example an example of cancel culture – even apart from the “ruining” factor. So if you tried to get the clerk fired AND you organized a group of people to complain about the clerk and ask for that person to be fired, than it would be an example of cancel culture (in my opinion).

    None of the Trump examples were examples of Trump trying to organize a group of people to try to get somebody fired (that I recall). But yes – if Trump asked his followers on twitter to all write to a company to get a person fired, because he disagreed with something they said – that would be an example of cancel culture.

  153. Willard says:

    > the organizing of a group of people

    And how’s that an important factor, RickA?

    Looks like special pleading to me.

  154. RickA says:

    Willard:

    it is my opinion that “culture” in cancel culture requires a group of people trying to cancel someone and not just one person trying to cancel someone.

    It is just an opinion.

  155. Willard says:

    RickA,

    In my opinion people have a right to assembly and organize. So in my opinion you’re just pulling the usual libertarian trick. There are limits to justified disingenuousness, and saying that culture is only when groups do things goes beyond it. In my opinion.

  156. RickA says:

    Willard:

    Of course people have a right to assemble and organize.

    We have different terms for these groups of people.

    We might call a group of people who assemble, who are all of the same party republicans or democrats.

    We might call a group of people who get together to organize a union.

    We call a group of people who get together to get someone fired for something they said a cancel culture.

  157. dikranmarsupial says:

    Joshua; “ Aren’t “Christian values” based – to a large degree – on “shaming” people?”

    No. ‘Aren’t “Christian [sic] values” based – to a large degree – on “shaming” people?” There is Indeed some irony there.

    Willard: Christian Cooper seems an impressive chap.

    Misc: I read Jon Ronson’s book about twitter shaming and thought it was quite interesting. It isn’t all that surprising really, we have long known that on-line forms of communication tend to depersonalise (in the sense we forget we are talking to a human being), so we shouldn’t expect people to apply the golden rule.

  158. Willard says:

    > We call a group of people who get together to get someone fired for something they said a cancel culture.

    I’m quite sure that the concept of culture is not a term for groups like a group of crows is called a murder, RickA.

    And that’s not an opinion:

    Culture (/ˈkʌltʃər/) is an umbrella term which encompasses the social behavior and norms found in human societies, as well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of the individuals in these groups.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture

    When Amy tried to cancel Christian, she acted alone. So think in terms of Karen-like behaviors. There needs to be something like I want to speak to the manager.

    Everyone wants to talk to the manager. Voicing one’s concerns is oftentimes perfectly fine. What’s not fine is when this is abused, like in Amy’s case. She was ready to lie to get a Black man into trouble. But she got caught. Then she lost her job. Why? Because of a business decision.

    Yet here you are, issuing grievance about canceling when it’s almost always a business decision.

    I find that odd.

    Would you prefer to continue living in a world where the privileged continues to abuse of their power over the meek? Those who keep punching hippies sure seem to.

  159. paulski0 says:

    Going back to the seed of the thread about free speech in a court case, that’s actually a neat example. Judges do police speech in court – it’s considered essential, in recognition that speech can cause harmful prejudicial consequences in that environment.

    One question I have about that is, how is that allowed under the First Amendment?

  160. Joshua says:

    Rick –

    So now we’re getting even more specific. Which is good. So cancel culture is when a group of people, not an individual, try to ruin someone’s life for something they’ve said. But it isn’t just disparaging and shaming the person. It has to be trying to get the person fired?

    Now we need to figure out how you define “ruin someone’s life.”

    > None of the Trump examples were examples of Trump trying to organize a group of people to try to get somebody fired (that I recall). But yes – if Trump asked his followers on twitter to all write to a company to get a person fired, because he disagreed with something they said – that would be an example of cancel culture.

    I think that’s stretching a bit. Of course Trump is trying to rally group support for his favored outcomes. That almost precisely describes what he’s doing. He’s appealing to a group of people through a group communication vehicle – to get them to put group pressure on the people he’s targeting.

    And as president, he’s adding in the use of state power, and I think fairly could be described as trying to ruin people’s lives (depending on how you define it, of course).

    Let’s take the Vindman example. Trump’s leveraging state power, shared among of a group of people as well as himself, to harass Vindman – to the point where Vindman quits. And he’s adding in a group shaming aspect by tweeting out disparaging comments about Vindmam to his millions of followers. If say that adds a significant element of “ruining his life” beyond just the routine trying to get him fired. He has disparaged Vindman’s character that will likely affect his employment situation and his life more generally for the rest of his life.

    Cancel culture?

  161. RickA says:

    Willard said “When Amy tried to cancel Christian,”

    That is interesting – you think Amy tried to cancel Christian. I didn’t think that. I thought Amy misunderstood Christian and called the police, and a third party tried to cancel Amy by posting the video (the call to organize an action against what the poster thought was terrible behavior). I might have my facts wrong, but Amy didn’t record the incident – did she?

    Christian is certainly not part of any cancel culture. I believe he said she should get her job back (I think). I don’t believe he ever called for her to be fired (again I am not sure of the exact facts).

    The question is why were charges brought against Amy – was that because a group of people wrote and demanded it? That could be cancel culture. Or was it because the prosecutors thought they had to to appease the mob? That could be a reaction to cancel culture. Or they could legitimately think a crime had been committed (doubtful – she said she interpreted his statement about her dog as a threat, but based on what Christian said later, she was misunderstood his meaning and intent – I believe). I don’t know what the prosecutors thinking was – so I don’t really know.

    But I thought Amy was cancelled – first by her getting fired and then by getting charged. Maybe not.

  162. Joshua says:

    And I think that Willard’s point stands.

    When I say that I identify culturally as a Jew, it doesn’t only mean that I identify with the group of people who are Jews.

    It also means that I identify with certain cultural characteristics, like eating smoked fish and chopped liver, and not wanting to be a member of any group that would have me as a member.

  163. Joshua says:

    Rick –

    See, here –

    > Christian is certainly not part of any cancel culture. I believe he said she should get her job back (I think). I don’t believe he ever called for her to be fired (again I am not sure of the exact facts).

    I read that and seems to me you’re using “culture” to not reference a group of people, but a characteristic set of behaviors or attitudes.

    And you’re suggesting that he could be part of a cancel culture as an individual. You didn’t just say he isn’t part of the cancel culture by virtue of being an individual acting not as part of a group – but in the basis of what he said and how he acted.

    So I don’t think that saying that I wasn’t in the cancel culture because I was an individual when I complained about the clerk is holding up.

  164. dikranmarsupial says:

    RickA “ it is my opinion that “culture” in cancel culture requires a group of people trying to cancel someone and not just one person trying to cancel someone.”

    No. A cancel culture means that there is a shared meme – that people should be “cancelled” for expressing the “wrong” opinions. That doesn’t mean that they necessarily want to cancel the same individual, that is just an instance of the expression of that meme.

  165. Willard says:

    > I might have my facts wrong, but Amy didn’t record the incident – did she?

    Instead of answering that leading question, RickA, I’d rather tell you that I think you’re trying to word your facts in a way that fits your conflation between mobbing and canceling. Canceling happens when someone becomes an outcast. This phenomenon is as old as human societies. In fact scapegoating is so common that René Girard posits that it’s a human characteristic:

    According to French thinker René Girard, human beings copy each other’s desires and are in perpetual conflict with one another over the objects of our desire. In early human communities, this conflict created a permanent threat of violence and forced our ancestors to find a way to unify themselves. They chose a victim, a scapegoat against whom the community could unite. Biblical religion, according to Girard, has attempted to overcome this historic plight. From the unjust murder of Abel by his brother Cain to the crucifixion of Christ, the Bible reveals the innocence of the victim. It is on this revelation that modern society unquietly rests.

    https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-scapegoat-the-ideas-of-ren%C3%A9-girard-part-1-1.3474195

    There’s no magic by which an act becomes OK when a single person commits it.

    Trying to get a Black man arrested by playing the innocent victim and trying to play on the police’s prejudices is not a good deed.

    The consequences of getting arrested, when you’re a Black man in the United States of America, look a lot like canceling to me.

    Don’t get me wrong here. I like to play Socratic games. But it’s not an easy game to play, more so when they result in very vivid consequences for real people.

  166. Willard says:

    Alternatively:

  167. izen says:

    @-Rick A
    ” I thought Amy misunderstood Christian and called the police, and a third party tried to cancel Amy by posting the video ”

    Amy’s ‘misunderstanding’ (what a forgiving characterisation!) of Christian was regarded by a third party as rooted in a racial bias.
    In that they considered it unlikely Amy would have regarded a man of her own race pointing out she was flouting local park regulations as a threat.
    And even more unlikely she would have called the police to complain about any Caucasian calling attention to her transgression.

    Enough people agreed with this assessment, especially with the multitude of similar incidents now recorded on mobile phones, to bring this to the attention of her employers.
    Either they agreed with this assessment, or they found that the wide consensus it was likely correct, sufficient reason to terminate her employment because it did not conform with the attitudes and behaviour they expect from their employees.

    In the past Christian may have lost his job for having the temerity to speak to a white woman like that, and her action in calling the police would have been seen as justified.
    Whether you approve of this reversal of who has acted in a disgraceful manner in this situation… YMMV.

  168. Willard says:

  169. Joshua says:

    How timely:

    CANCEL CULTURE STRIKES AGAIN !!!1!1!!!!

    –snip–
    Tucker Carlson’s top writer resigns after secretly posting racist and sexist remarks in online forum
    –snip–

    Put this one in the couldn’t be made up category.

    Damn hippies. Out to ruin lives and cost this dood (see the article) his job.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/media/tucker-carlson-writer-blake-neff/index.html

  170. Willard says:

    I rather like the title of TomS’ editorial: The Harper’s Letter Is What Happens When the Discourse Takes Precedence Over Reality.

    I also like its fall:

    Whose essential freedoms were put at risk by the Bennet-Cotton episode? In the world of the Harper’s letter, the threat that mattered was the one to the careers of veteran editors—not the threat that had bullets and bayonets behind it, a threat that the president himself would offer again in his Independence Day remarks. The promoters of the letter cast themselves as persecuted heroes, putting their names on the line to defend an embattled conception of liberty. The people putting themselves in front of police lines have a more expansive vision of what freedom means, and what risks they’re prepared to take for it.

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/harpers-letter-reality-debate.amp

    How it discusses DavidS’ case is also interesting, but it’ll have to wait.

  171. Willard says:

    Audits never end:

  172. RickA says:

    Izen:

    Sorry for the delay in getting back to you – I was running some errands and eating dinner.

    The threat wasn’t about floating park rules. This was what Amy misunderstood as the threat:

    “Look, if you’re going to do what you want, I’m going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it,” he told her, before he pulled out the treats and began filming, according to his post.

    It was only later that she learned he was talking about dog treats. She didn’t know what he meant by “you’re not going to like it”, and misunderstood this to be a threat to her (or maybe her dog).

    In any event – Christian isn’t cooperating with the prosecution and I doubt very much they are going to be able to prove she intended to file a false report given the ambitiousness of the statement.

    The truth is we are all racist – we all have unconscious biases and we all have fear of the other. Sometimes people jump to the wrong conclusion because of these influences.

    Did Amy try to cancel Christian? Not according to my understanding of the term. Did Christian try to cancel Amy – nope. This is a mob and a then reaction to the mob (in my opinion). Amy looks like an idiot for overreacting to a statement which was ambiguous and Christian looks like he took the high road. The mob wanted blood and the prosecutors will try to deliver.

  173. RickA says:

    Sorry – not ambitiousness but ambiguousness.

  174. Steven Mosher says:

    “In my opinion people have a right to assembly and organize. ”

    this too needs to end

  175. Willard says:

    Alright, alright. With distancing and masks.

  176. Steven Mosher says:

    we want more of this.

    There is a whole industry waiting to be built.
    You get in your car, you drive around, you find a Karen.
    You doxx her, and then you monetize the whole experience.
    There doesnt need to be any actual evidence, no due process, just a viral video.
    Monetizing this is one way to get your own reparations, heck you could demand payment
    from the karen to hide the video. A stormy daniels type of thing.
    or just drive views to your IG.

    we want more of this. this is culture we asprire to. basically, assume every karen is guilty,
    gather some tidbit of evidence. coulb be anything. Unlease her licence plate to the mob,
    SERVED!

    https://www.insider.com/karen-video-viral-i-have-black-husband-driveway-seattle-trend-2020-6

    on a related matter

    on a related matter in the UK of course

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/01/minister-keep-suspects-anonymous-if-there-is-a-reputation-to-protect

  177. Willard says:

    Reinventing blackmail is like reinventing tenure:

  178. Steven Mosher says:

    related
    This is a small movement

    auditing america

    One point these guys make is that the state is already surveiling the public.
    But people weirdly object to individuals recording them in public.

    There’s a business here selling body cams to karens so they can protect themselves against
    false charges. with 5G we can all become real time witnesses for mob justice.. err community
    self policing

    https://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html

    David brin had the right idea, watch the watchers

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCq94tZvLY5-orEFs1YjKRSw

  179. Steven Mosher says:

    “Basically, this means updating rule of law for social media.

    First step may be to build a community interested in doing this. A form of mutual insurance, really. That community must be capable of economically sustaining someone if the broader public doesn’t forgive.”

    the public apology is a huge thing in Korea. Its either that or jump off the bridge and cancel yourself.

  180. Steven Mosher says:

    “The truth is we are all racist – we all have unconscious biases and we all have fear of the other. Sometimes people jump to the wrong conclusion because of these influences.”

    This is why business should start over with hiring. First fire all racists.
    Why draw the line at stupid people who show their racism on camera.

  181. Steven Mosher says:

    “Alright, alright. With distancing and masks.”

    yes fat lives matter

    protect the hefty and plump

  182. Willard says:

    > his life would be better if he had commited some crime, served his time, and then talked to these people

    Why stop there?

    Let’s create colleges where students are being taught how to do crimes.

    Then let’s hire the best ones.

  183. Steven Mosher says:

    “We call a group of people who get together to get someone fired for something they said a cancel culture.”

    it does not have to involve getting them fired.
    That is just one form of punishment
    the mob has no real idea of how the punishment should fit the crime

    1. in some cases, we get Karen charged with a crime. amy and christian
    2. in some cases we just publish her licence plate, maybe some dude will find her
    and administer some private justice. people die all the time. no one will notice or care
    3. in high profile cases, yes, demand their job. they should never work again. ever
    maybe even take away their right to vote like felons.
    4. in some cases deplatforming is all you can get– take away their voice. delete their accounts
    5. in some cases, you can get them expelled from school.
    6. in some cases they will cancel themselves from the gene pool! best ever.

    The great thing about mob justice is you dont need to have sentencing guidelines, or
    due process, or rules of evidence. All karens are guilty by definition. Its a structural
    thing. They are born guilty and privaledged. The trick is capturing them on camera, or rummaging through old tweets, maybe years
    ago she wore the wrong halloween outfit. the unlease the mob. The mob will serve whatever
    justice it can.. 1-6 is a good start.
    because they are guilty from birth, we dont need to worry about getting individual cases wrong.

    there is no reason why the crimes against social order ( dont be a jerk) should be treated
    with the same kind of process that other crimes are– like murder and such. Just unlease
    the mob.. justice served.

  184. Willard says:

    > like murder and such

    I doubt the authors of Teh Letter were after this kind of case, Mosh.

    Reading between the lines, they were handwaving to :

    – James getting fired NYT as their op-ed editor;
    – Jeanine or Woody, the latter getting his book not exactly cancelled;
    – journalists having to stand the editorial line;
    – Laurie or Lawrence, whom still have their jobs;
    – DavidS, whom got fired under really weird circumstances; or
    – Heads of companies fired by their own boards;

    What’s the denominator for all these cases?

    Corporations.

    Who kept their jobs?

    Those who are powerful enough (e.g. Woody) or those who have protection (e.g. Laurie or Lawrence).

    You want to solve mobbing?

    Protect jobs.

    And that’s the memo.

  185. Steven Mosher says:

    “Reinventing blackmail is like reinventing tenure:”

    USA is slow to pick up on the blackmail aspect. In China people take videos of others
    to blackmail with regularity. Karens beware.

    Its done a little bit in Korea albeit the behavior being recorded is different.
    Doesn’t matter, the important thing is border patrol. Finding the goats and making sure
    you scape them.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50582338

    and of course in the USA there is revenge porn. It is just a mtter of time before people realize
    they can make bank by recording karens.

  186. Steven Mosher says:

    “I doubt the authors of Teh Letter were after this kind of case, Mosh.”

    if I were talking about the narrow case these elites make, I would say so.
    I’m not.

    And again, the punishment we need to inflict on these people are not limited to mere employment.
    the shaming can take many forms.. maybe a giant red R tatooed on their foreheads .
    social justice must be served.

  187. Steven Mosher says:

    “Let’s create colleges where students are being taught how to do crimes.”

    we already do that, kids are taught thought crimes all the time.

    defund academia

  188. Steven Mosher says:

    “But Ginni Thomas, wife of SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas, decided she wasn’t having it and sent off an email saying the banner invited “mob rule and property looting.”

    ‘“Look, if you’re going to do what you want, I’m going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it,”

    and a statue of robert e lee.

    what is the common problem?

  189. Willard says:

    > the punishment we need to inflict on these people are not limited to mere employment.

  190. Steven Mosher says:

    “You want to solve mobbing?

    Protect jobs.”

    The mob of course can still target the company.
    company X cannot fire racist employee Z.
    Mob still targets the company, they go out of business.

    obviously state capitalism is the answer.
    we need to protect jobs and companies.

    Funny story. one day I was asking a friend how they spread stories on social media platoforms
    that were heavily regulated ( the state was following hash tags and shutting shit down)
    his answer
    ‘metaphors’ ambiguity and polysemy
    so when “metoo” was being regulated the populace responded with #myfathersbrothersnephewtoo”
    it helps if your language has a ton of polysemy

    But sometimes nothing has meaning.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/hong-kong-activists-blank-signs-avoid-china-national-security-law-2020-7

    which is why silence is a crime as the citizens of fremont told their mayor.
    There should be a pledge or something people are compelled to say.

    taking a knee during that pledge will not be allowed, nor will silence be tolerated, because silence is violence.

    the real problem is meaning. cancel meaning.

  191. Steven Mosher says:

    “I think if Mrs. Cooper got ten years in prison it would deter a lot of people from her socio-economic class who are good at planning ahead and playing the game. It would be a much more effective deterrent than a ten year sentence for eg a tough teenager who robbed a liquor store”

    this is a Poe, right?

  192. Willard says:

    > The mob of course can still target the company.

    And the company can defend its workers.

    Does your spamming have a point, Mosh?

  193. Steven Mosher says:

    Joshua

    ‘The writers of the letter use seductive but nebulous concepts and coded language to obscure the actual meaning behind their words, in what seems like an attempt to control and derail the ongoing debate about who gets to have a platform. ”

    there are always secret meanings!!!
    find them all

  194. Joshua says:

    Steven –

    I don’t endorse everything in everything I link.

    Don’t assign guilt by association.

    STOP TRYING TO CANCEL ME!!! 1!!11!!

  195. Joshua says:

    BTW – Kahan changed much of his views on shaming.

  196. Steven Mosher says:

    “The writers of the letter use seductive but nebulous concepts and coded language to obscure the actual meaning behind their words, in what seems like an attempt to control and derail the ongoing debate about who gets to have a platform. ”

    there are always secret meanings!!!
    find them all”

    and it goes beyond the immediate secret meanings and secret signs ( like the ok gesture)
    There’s the past to consider. Grant owned a slave. Sins of the father or father in law.
    Again, a good lesson from Korea, punishment needs to be generational.

  197. Steven Mosher says:

    “Classic authoritarians would prefer state abuse of power rather than over-reach by those who have never had power.

    One maintains the status quo, and the other overturns it. Those with privilege have more to lose with the one compared to the other.”

    “On approaching the other it has lost its own self, since it finds itself as another being; secondly, it has thereby sublated that other, for this primitive consciousness does not regard the other as essentially real but sees its own self in the other.”

    not so simple

  198. Steven Mosher says:

    “Well – I would look at the contract. Most sports contracts have a morality clause. It usually only covers what the player does or says – not third parties who are merely associated with the player (spouse, kids, parents, extended family, Kevin Bacon). I would think this player had a suit for wrongful termination – but they settled so that is probably not an issue (they reached a mutual decision . . .).”

    A smart employer will not allow employees to have social media accounts or to speak publicly to the press or otherwise.

    freedom of a speach is a government thing, its probably best to have your employees just delete their accounts and use the pre cautionary principle.

  199. Joshua says:

    Steven –

    You said I had to choose between government enforced speech code and mob rule.

    There are choices other than just those two – although those two make for nice and tody arguments.

  200. Steven Mosher says:

    “This is frightening social terrain where political purity tests are administered at random.”

    that’s the whole point. When the government sets a speech code, you can have a pretty good idea of what not to say. Fear is minimized. The beauty of tyranny by the mob is that you never really
    know who is watching or what you will be held account for. When they apply justice randomly with haphazard punishments the bonding with the oppressor becomes even more important.

    recall
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confrontation

    Now imagine if there wasnt footage taken from other angles and longer times.

    you set the crowd on fire, you doxx the goats, and spin the wheel

    Bust a deal, face the wheel

  201. Joshua says:

    Steven –

    > When the government sets a speech code, you can have a pretty good idea of what not to say. Fear is minimized

    Fear is MINIMIZED when your government dictates what you can and can’t say? Really?

    C’mon, that’s a Poe, right?

  202. Steven Mosher says:

    “There are choices other than just those two – although those two make for nice and tody arguments.”

    practically speaking there is not.

    I am sure you have ways of disguising mob rule.

    there is one alternative, maybe some sort of super hero batman of speech codes

  203. Willard says:

    > maybe some sort of super hero batman of speech codes

    Perhaps Henry:

  204. Steven Mosher says:

    “Fear is MINIMIZED when your government dictates what you can and can’t say? Really?”

    sure. compared to having the mob dictate it.
    I will take a simple example.

    in Korea the laws about defamation are very strict.
    Lets say a celebrity claimed they were assaulted. I would know not to go online and even
    suggest the assault was staged. I could get sued.

    Now take the USA. some celebrity claims they were assaulted, say in chicago.
    ( I wont say the name) Can I comment? what will the mob do?

    or take the mayor of fremont. She said nothing and the mob decided her ‘asian silence” was violence.

    prior notice is a good thing. This is why we dont apply laws retroactively.

    but the mob can decide that what Joshua said 10 years ago is relevant, or what he didnt say
    or do.

    How dare Harpers publish this letter when years ago they were silent?

    So ya, force to choose I will choose a government process over a mob process.
    Amy from the park is lucky she got charged with a crime. She will not have to spin the
    social justice wheel.

  205. “tyranny by the mob”

    You should write a media book about that with your cherry picked videos even.

    Oh wait … “Democracy is tyranny by the mob.”
    https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/foreign-policy/self-defense-and-free-trade/the-forward-strategy-for-failure/

    “Fear is minimized”

    Tell that to the people of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, …

  206. Steven Mosher says:

    “And the company can defend its workers.

    Does your spamming have a point, Mosh?”

    and who will defend the company? basically the innocent employees who are targeted because
    they work for a company that protects its bad employees?

  207. Steven Mosher says:

    “Tell that to the people of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, ”

    I can tell you that folks in china have no fear. it is clear what is allowed and not allowed.

    I think you are missing the point.

    the contrast is between a system with clear laws about what speech is allowed, with
    prior notice and and due process versus a system where the mob decides what is
    acceptable AFTER you said it and they apply instant justice and penalty.

    In system number 1 I dont have to be hyper vigilant. Don’t say x, dont even talk about X
    dont hint, just avoid the topic. No fear. In system number 2, you have to be more vigilant..
    will Y be upset if I say this, or will they take it the wrong way or mis interpret it. And if they
    do, what will happen?

    I’ve lived in both. I choose 1, much safer knowing in advance what is allowed and what will happen
    if you break the rules.

  208. dikranmarsupial says:

    “ So ya, force to choose I will choose a government process over a mob process.”

    Like formal inquiries over orchestrated campaigns of FOI requests?

  209. Willard says:

    > and who will defend the company?

    From what, a possible mob apocalypse?

    In theory, there’s very little anyone can do against apocalyptic thought experiments.

    In practice, states with a rule of law that helps people live in a society maintain some kind of balance.

    Until there’s a tipping point. One has been caused by the price of tea. Another by cake.

  210. Steven Mosher says:

    “I don’t endorse everything in everything I link.

    Don’t assign guilt by association.”

    Mob rules.

    Dont forget this is about the Letter in harpers. the first thing people did was to point out to some signatories
    that they had signed a letter with other people who are bad people who said bad things elsewhere.

    are you arguing for individual responsibility now? no such thing, it’s all structural.

  211. Steven Mosher says:

    “Until there’s a tipping point. One has been caused by the price of tea. Another by cake.”

    not sure I want to wait for tipping points in climate or culture wars.

    but tenure for all does have some merit. I grant that.

    it would be interesting to see how the market would respond when a company said
    ‘we can’t fire jerks for being jerks, it’s the law”

    personally I am happy with anything where rules are laid out transparently, openly, and in advance
    and punishments are tailored to fit the crime, and accounts are settled when the debt is served.
    anything but trial by twitter and the wheel of justice.

  212. Steven Mosher says:

    “Like formal inquiries over orchestrated campaigns of FOI requests?”

    the process was followed.
    the whole point of splitting up the requests into smaller requests ( my idea) was to abide
    by the 18 hour rule.

    the rules were stated. they were clear, and the effort was tailored to meet the rules.
    A single request that took more than18 hours could have been denied.

    My recommendations for CRU were simple.
    follow the rules.

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3302.htm

    1. dont use confidential data without written justification ( this was their standing rule at the time)
    2. if you do have justification ( mission criticality) do not CO MINGLE
    confidential and non confidential.
    3. Follow FOIA rules

  213. Last time I checked, you not Asian or Russian or from the Middle East. You don’t speak for them because you are not one of them, said Stan to Token. You need to check your whits ass privilege at the door. Living somewhere does not suddenly make you one of them.

    “Dont forget this is about the Letter in harpers.”

    We have not. but perhaps you should go back and read it again as I done did.

    It reads as them saying we have a privilege, a voice or that they represent (e. g. ghetto talk), something that the common person does not have. That they fear the common person when they bark. And they should.

  214. Willard says:

    The fact that it’s a letter in Harper’s is worth due diligence:

    On Tuesday, 153 of the most prominent journalists, authors, and writers, including J. K. Rowling, Malcolm Gladwell, and David Brooks, published an open call for civility in Harper’s Magazine. They write, in the pages of a prominent magazine that’s infamous for being anti-union, not paying its interns, and firing editors over editorial disagreements with the publisher: “The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.”

    https://theobjective.substack.com/p/a-more-specific-letter-on-justice

    There are links under “anti-union” and “not paying its interns.” Not under “firing editors over editorial disagreements with the publisher.” Later.

  215. dikranmarsupial says:

    “ the process was followed.”

    The orchestrated campaign of foi requests was not “process” as it was intended. It was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the limitations in the process intended to prevent unreasonable burden on the recipient. Cleverly exploiting a loophole to evade the intent of the process is not “process” as intended by the law makers.

  216. dikranmarsupial says:

    IMHO it was a Distributed denial of service attack – where those requesting the data had no serious intention of doing anything with it. Mob not process.

  217. dikranmarsupial says:

    AFAICS, those involved in “cancel culture” activities are largely acting within the letter of the law. We can’t rely on legislation to define the boundary between right and wrong, only between legal and illegal.

  218. izen says:

    @-SM
    “So ya, force to choose I will choose a government process over a mob process.”

    Then from a historical perspective you are choosing social stasis over change.
    What you call ‘mob process’ has resulted in the abolition of slavery, votes and a degree of financial autonomy for women, the repeal of segregation and ‘Jim Crow’ laws,the decriminalisation of homosexuality, the legitimisation of same-sex marriage, and that in just one Nation. Similar arcs that bend towards justice can be traced in many societies over the last few centuries.

    You look to be on the wrong side of history. Cultural norms and societies change, from a variety of internal pressures, economic and political interests. But governments are usually in the business of trying to enforce no change. If only to protect their elite position of power and dominance. However attractive you find it to be on that side, the past indicates it is the loosing one…

  219. David B Benson says:

    https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/732/climate-models
    Climate models have skill in projecting into the future; trustworthy via a study led by Zeke Hausfather @ UCB.

  220. Joshua says:

    Steven –

    > I can tell you that folks in china have no fear. it is clear what is allowed and not allowed.

    First, you cherry-picked China from a group that included Iran, Russia, and N. Korea. Which is a cheap trick, but also prices my point that you limit the choices in an absurd manner.

    Secondly, using the same cheap trick you say ‘folks in china”.

    Folks in China….

    You mean FOLKS in China?

    Uighurs and Kazakhs have no fear?

    Falun Gong and Tibetan Buddhists have no fear?

    WTF are you talking about?

    I’m not sure those FOLKS want you as their spokesperson

  221. Joshua says:

    Steven –

    > the first thing people did was to point out to some signatories
    that they had signed a letter with other people who are bad people who said bad things elsewhere.

    I don’t endorse everything that everyone who criticizes the Harper’s letter does. Why are you assigning me guilt by association yet again?

    Twice in one thread.

    Yup, you’re definitely a fellow traveler with the cancel culture.

  222. Steven Mosher says:

    “Then from a historical perspective you are choosing social stasis over change.”

    ah no.

    what I am saying is this. if the culture decides it wants to punish people for certain kinds of speech,
    say defamation or hate speech or whatever, then I choose a place where this decision
    has an open process with deliberation and transparency and due process.
    yes the mob called for womens right to vote, as an example, but they didnt try to line up and
    storm the ballot box and vote counters didnt do whatever they pleased. the law was changed

    If folks want people to deprived of the right to work, for example, then I would choose a society
    where this happened within an open process. Not the mob beating dictating to companies.

    So I am not choosing stasis. I am saying I would choose a society where change was put into
    law.

    of course change can start, as you note, with the mob. But it doesnt end there. That’s the point.
    the point is in all the cases you mentioned, the change was turned into regular order.

    So again, if the culture decides that certain forms of speech should result in punishment
    I choose a culture where that process of punishment follows a well defined path. I choose one
    where the offending words/ideas are spelled out as clearly as possible. I choose a society
    where I would get my day in court with all the attendent protections, appeals, and proportionate
    punishment.

    you choose the mob?
    why not choose the mob for defamation and libel if the job they do on people is so much more
    fair than the state?

  223. Steven Mosher says:

    Joshua
    ‘Yup, you’re definitely a fellow traveler with the cancel culture.”

    cancel culture is redundant. as willard notes, you might as well drop the cancel.

  224. Steven Mosher says:

    “First, you cherry-picked China from a group that included Iran, Russia, and N. Korea. Which is a cheap trick, but also prices my point that you limit the choices in an absurd manner.

    No I picked the case where I have actual experience.

    you might try that

  225. Joshua says:

    > No I picked the case where I have actual experience.

    Yet you totally ignored the situation for millions upon millions of cproplr in China.

    I am well aware of how most Chinese view the trade-offs of freedom of expression for economic progress. Didn’t need to live there to be so. Stop appealing to your own authority. It makes it easier for you to fool yourself.

    Now back to the millions and millions in China who have much to fear from the Chinese government’s dprrvh codes…

  226. Steven Mosher says:

    “I’m not sure those FOLKS want you as their spokesperson”

    I dont speak for criminals.

    Cultures get to decide what speech they want to allow and disallow.
    Again, I think a culture that gives people well defined notice of what is allowed
    and what the consequences will be for breaking the law is superior to mob rule.

    I dont know how to make this any more clear. I’d choose

    A) well defined speech codes over ill defined codes
    B) due process over instant judgement
    C) proportionate punishment over the wheel of justice.
    D) rehabilitation over exile

    and in the end a path to forgiveness and reconciliation.

    As it stands praticaly speaking, the mob never offers the things I prefer.
    States do, governments do, not perfectly of course.

    if you have something else that is
    1. Not a state
    2. Not a collection of people

    that can offer the things I prefer then you can give it a name.

  227. Steven Mosher says:

    “I am well aware of how most Chinese view the trade-offs of freedom of expression for economic progress.”

    that is not the trade off. not at all.
    you fooled yourself.

  228. Joshua says:

    > that is not the trade off.

    Well, that’s a fair point. In my experience, most majority Chinese don’t view it as a trade-off. They think it doesn’t make sense to view it that way. That was culturally insensitive for me to project that onto them.

    But I view it as a trade-off.

    And no doubt, millions upon millions of minority Chinese do as well. Which you keep ducking.

  229. David B Benson says:

    Steven Mosher, what is the tradeoff?

  230. Joshua says:

    > Again, I think a culture that gives people well defined notice of what is allowed
    and what the consequences will be for breaking the law is superior to mob rule

    Again, you offer a false choice.

    There’s nowhere else to go with this as long as you continue to take harbor in cheap tricks.

  231. Joshua,

    Again, I think a culture that gives people well defined notice of what is allowed and what the consequences will be for breaking the law is superior to mob rule

    I would argue that the former is a greater risk to actual free speech than the latter. I think it’s fine to have some laws (laws against hate speech, for example) but as a way of policing public debate, it doesn’t seem particularly optimal to me. At least with “mob rule” institutions can choose to not bow to it. As far as I can tell, the reason some do is not because they feel actually threatened by the “mob”, but because they’re putting something else ahead of protecting free speech. It’s either their reputation, or a concern about their business, or something else that they regard as more important to them than defending their employee/member. One could argue that the issue isn’t so much the existence of online “mobs”, but that institutions don’t stand up for their principles as often as they should (I accept that this is, itself, a little simplistic).

  232. angech says:

    I am enjoying the cancel culture, both out there and in here.
    So many themes playing out as they should.
    If you encourage restrictions on debate.
    If you want to cancel deniers, for instance and ban them from journals and commenting here in good faith (ahem, well some of them).
    Then when the wider world follows your example that should be a good thing.
    Gets a little bit touchier when they start on your own values though, does it not?
    Pull down the statues, burn the books, send the scientists ( us lot) to work in the fields.
    Rules were clear though, have to admit that.

    Where was I?
    A letter in a magazine stirring up problems? Who cares? The published world is a tiny club of non action intellectuals.
    No police? No rules? Minority power?
    Might be a few more nervous voters out there who like a blend between cancel culture and the east?
    Or maybe not

  233. dikranmarsupial says:

    “ Again, I think a culture that gives people well defined notice of what is allowed and what the consequences will be for breaking the law is superior to mob rule”

    Godwin-bait?

    For me, it would depend on what the culture thought should be allowed and what should not be allowed. As I said earlier, “legal” and “right” are not the same thing (e.g. slavery, eugenics, etc.).

  234. Steven Mosher says:

    “And no doubt, millions upon millions of minority Chinese do as well. Which you keep ducking.”

    how am I ducking it? Of course criminals dont like the system of laws they are in violation of.

    The question you want to ask them is which do you prefer
    a system where the government makes the law you want to violate
    or a system where the mob makes the law.

    Until you offer a concrete alternative and I mean concrete then that’s the choice I see people faced with

  235. Steven Mosher says:

    “I would argue that the former is a greater risk to actual free speech”

    ATTP, my sense was everyone was pretty much agreed to the fact that this is not about “free speech”

    Speech is always limited. the question is

    1. who will make the rules about what speech is out of bounds
    2. how will disputes and violations be adjudicated.

    right now it appears we have 2 systems. One system for things like libel and defamation
    and another system for words about things like race, gender, and other stuff that people get cancelled for.

    For defamation the courts take your money, you settled the matter and get back with your life.
    For the cancel culture.. lets say you are colin kapernick and took a symbolic knee during
    the coerced speech of singing the national athem, the mob works to get you fired,
    they succeed, then a second mob works to get you another shot.. ect.
    Or you lose your job as editor for publishing a piece, lose your job for linking to a bad paper.
    get cancelled for whatever the mob deems today is beyond the pale.
    There’s no fine to pay. no due process, no proportionate justice. no sentencing guidelines
    no statute of limitations. hey look, this clown wore the wrong halloween costume 20 years
    ago. it seems weird to me that there is this well defined system for how you are treated
    when you defame someone and this total cluster fuck if mess up pro nouns of a group.

    Now willard at least has a practical proposal. Tenure. The mob can inflict shame, they throw tomatoes at you, but they can’t get you fired.

    again, there will always be limits on speech. who determines the limits and the consequences
    is the issue I think. Again, with the governance question. So, I dont care to debate where you want to draw the lines (what speech should be free). Every culture will draw the lines at different places, but they pretty much all draw lines.
    I prefer bright lines to fuzzy lines, and prefer orderly adjudication of disputes and violations above
    ad hoc ones. I prefer bright lines because I happen to live in various cultures and find bright lines easier to navigate than fuzzy ones.

  236. dikranmarsupial says:

    ‘ and another system for words about things like race, gender, and other stuff that people get cancelled for.’

    There is actually a third system, exemplified by the “golden rule”, in which people understand that with rights go responsibilities.

    ‘ I prefer bright lines to fuzzy lines’

    And yet you seek loopholes to blur the boundaries to circumvent the protections that the regulations were evidently intended to provide.

  237. izen says:

    @-SM
    “…which do you prefer a system where the government makes the law you want to violate
    or a system where the mob makes the law.”

    I prefer a system where the government is moulded and shaped by ‘mob’ (pejorative rhetoric) cultural opinion that shapes the resulting laws, rather than the economic interests of the elite in power.
    Historically that has proven superior in amending the abuse of power by a ruling class.

  238. Joshua says:

    Steven –

    > So, I dont care to debate where you want to draw the lines

    If course you don’t. It isn’t neat and tidy.

    Its not binary.

    And you’re not a minority in China. You don’t live in North Korea

    Why should you bother?

  239. Steven,

    ATTP, my sense was everyone was pretty much agreed to the fact that this is not about “free speech”

    Speech is always limited. the question is

    1. who will make the rules about what speech is out of bounds
    2. how will disputes and violations be adjudicated.

    I certainly don’t believe that all of those who signed the letter did so because they’re really concerned about free speech. My point was that if there really is a concern about some culture that is acting to limit what people can say, I don’t think the solution to this is to implement laws that limit what people can say.

    If, on the other hand, there should be limits to what people can say, then one can argue in favour of laws that do this. This, though, seems a somewhat distinct to an issue about whether or not some insidious culture is threatening our free speech (although, of course, any attempt to introduce legislation that will limit what we can say will have free speech implications).

  240. izen says:

    @-SM
    “I prefer bright lines to fuzzy lines, and prefer orderly adjudication of disputes and violations above
    ad hoc ones.”

    Apartheid and the Jim Crow segregation laws were clear bright lines of what was acceptable and who could say or do what and where.
    Far too often the rules, laws, result in the systemic effect of protecting the rights of the religious, ideological or economic dominant group, and constraining the rights of others.
    It takes the ‘mob’ action of movements like the civil rights groups to change this to follow dikran’s ideal that the Golden Rule, or equal reciprocal treatment is realised.

  241. Steven Mosher says:

    “Steven Mosher, what is the tradeoff?”

    In the first place there is freedom of expression of china. But they have a longer list of things
    that are not allowed. we outlaw things like defamation and screaming fire … ect.
    we also restrict certain types of content ( kiddie porn) and you are not allowed to lie to the FBI
    while the FBI can lie to you,

    here is some back ground on china and explantion of the kinds of things you cant say.
    its not too onerous.

    https://www.loc.gov/law/help/freedom-expression/china.php

    If I had to say what was at the heart of the attitude I would say “social harmony”.
    The importance of that became very clear to me over the years. It really is an interesting thing to witness

    and if you want to understand some of the roots of that ( it’s probably way more complicated)
    you can start here.
    https://www.china-mike.com/chinese-culture/confucius/

  242. izen says:

    @-SM
    “I prefer bright lines to fuzzy lines, and prefer orderly adjudication of disputes and violations above
    ad hoc ones.”

    I think this reveals a fundamental error about the nature of ethical choices.
    There are never bright orderly lines of adjudication, by their nature moral questions are always context dependent, fuzzy and ad hoc.

  243. dikranmarsupial says:

    Ironically the roots of British/American culture are in the enlightenment. Cultures change over time, the world is a lot smaller than it was a few hundred years ago.

  244. Steven Mosher says:

    “If course you don’t. It isn’t neat and tidy.

    Its not binary.”

    of course it is binary. lines divide.
    My point is not where the line is drawn, but HOW a decision is made.
    I dont want to discuss it because I dont care where you draw the lines.
    draw them where ever you like. I follow the law.

    Now since you have not offered an alternative to government making the rules or
    the mob making the rules, I will help you out.

    I could see businesses making the rules as a condition of employment.
    thou shalt not discuss religion, politics or sex on the internet.
    Plenty of employees ( take elon musk for example) have to avoid talking about certain
    subjects in public.

    I get that you want to protect the minority. who is going to do that?

  245. dikranmarsupial says:

    I agree with Izen, if ethical behaviour were straightforward, some of us would be doing it.

  246. RickA says:

    I am hopeful that over a fairly short period of time, a year or so, this cancelling over words will die out on its on. No laws necessary. People will just choose not to join the mob. Companies will learn to ignore the mob. Already parts of the mob are cancelling each other – so we are close to the end (I think).

    Getting fired (and then rehired) just for reading a word in a case, in a class about the case – you gotta figure we are close to the end of this mass hysteria and mass stupidity. I hope. That is a case about the company rejecting the mob (after first allowing mob rule and then wising up). Soon it will be cool to reject the mob and then it will be over.

  247. dikranmarsupial says:

    “ I follow the law.‘

    No, finding loopholes that violate the intention of the law is not following the law, it is exploiting the letter of the law to bend the law. Also, legal and right are not the same concept.

    Would you be content for your legal protections to be circumvented by clever exploitation of loopholes?

  248. izen says:

    @-SM

    It IS way more complicated, but the Confucian ideals of social harmony, like many of the Western cultural dogmas from the same era, fail the Golden rule we now apply to equality between the genders.
    Unless you apply a LOT of creative interpretation.

  249. In the first place there is freedom of expression of china.

    Unless you’re a Uighur:

    Or Tibetan.
    Or Falon Gong.
    Or want to mention Tiananmen Square.
    Or want to mention the millions murdered by Mao.
    Or cite the forced abortions and sterilizations in Xinjang.
    Or Winnie the Pooh.

    Or, say F China and their genocides.

  250. RickA says:

    So to sum up the thread – is it fair to say that cancel culture is mob justice. A group of people (a mob) trying to punish a person for something they said.

  251. Steven Mosher says:

    “I think this reveals a fundamental error about the nature of ethical choices.
    There are never bright orderly lines of adjudication, by their nature moral questions are always context dependent, fuzzy and ad hoc.

    who says its a moral question?

    but about murder, its pretty clear that there is a bright line. it requires the death of a person.
    and we dont decide that in an ad hoc manner. it always require a death. So yes, some elements
    are bright and others are less bright.

    put another way, it’s immoral to rely on fuzzy lines and ad hoc decisions.

  252. Joshua says:

    Steven –

    You are still ducking and playing ganes. It’s like your analogies where you reconstruct the world to fit your arguments.

    For example:

    > Now since you have not offered an alternative to government making the rules or
    the mob making the rules, I will help you out.

    I don’t need to provide examples. Countries and realities that don’t match your binary are all around us. In fact there is virtually no country that fits your binary – perhaps with the exception of North Korea. So why don’t you prove an example of a country where either “the government makes the rules” or “the mob makes the rules.”

  253. dikranmarsupial says:

    SM “ who says its a moral question”

    I suspect pretty much everybody. The goalpost shift to mere legality appears to be yours.

  254. izen says:

    @-Rick A
    “I am hopeful that over a fairly short period of time, a year or so, this cancelling over words will die out on its on. No laws necessary.”

    I see no prospect that religious institutions for example will abandon the cancel culture they have practised for centuries. Cf Galileo.
    In fact as their cultural authority decreases they seem to be doubling down. Look at Franklin Graham, or the resistance of the catholic schools to paying for female healthcare, or hiring outside the dogmatists that will conform to their precepts.

  255. Joshua says:

    > I see no prospect that religious institutions for example will abandon the cancel culture they have practised for centuries.

    Indeed, neither will Trump or the Republican Party or climate “skeptics” abandon a practice that has served them so well.

  256. dikranmarsupial says:

    “ put another way, it’s immoral to rely on fuzzy lines and ad hoc decisions.”

    Err, didn’t your FOI request scheme rely on exploiting a fuzzy line in the regulations?

  257. Steven Mosher says:

    ‘fail the Golden rule we now apply to equality between the genders.”

    we?
    anyway, is that golden rule about equality between the genders a bright line or is ad hoc and all fuzzy?
    I’m betting you think it is pretty bright.

  258. izen says:

    @-SM
    “but about murder, its pretty clear that there is a bright line. it requires the death of a person. and we dont decide that in an ad hoc manner. ”

    Hmmm…

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53345885?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cjnwl8q4xz7t/us-drone-strikes&link_location=live-reporting-story
    Soleimani died along with nine other people in a drone strike near Baghdad airport in Iraq in January.
    Last week, Iran issued arrest warrants for US President Donald Trump and 35 others on charges of murder and terrorism in connection with the killing.

  259. izen says:

    @-SM
    “I’m betting you think it is pretty bright.”

    You lose the bet.
    I would regard it as one of the fuzziest there is.
    LOTS of context, both physiological, tradition, and logistical comes into play.

  260. False dichotomies and strawpeople, oh my.

    Can’t even be bothered to spell Colin Kaepernick’s name correctly.

    “For defamation the courts take your money, you settled the matter and get back with your life.”

    Yeah, like that is just a matter of a few words on something that can take years to decades and rather deep pockets (but hey, eat the rich). 😦

    :the coerced speech of singing the national athem”

    Nobody is making anyone sing the national anther. 😦

    We get that you don’t like (pejorative) mobs. Its like you missed out on the Vietnam War protests and Woodstock or some such. So, welcome to social media platforms (which I utterly hate for other reasons) where everyone has a video camera. In other words … deal with it, because it isn’t going away anytime soon.

    Hacked emails, out of context quotes thereof and ruining other people’s reputations appears to be OK with you though. The irony is just killing ma.

  261. dikranmarsupial says:

    “ I see no prospect that religious institutions for example will abandon the cancel culture they have practised for centuries. Cf Galileo.”

    C.f George’s Le Maitre

    ‘ By 1951, Pope Pius X declared that Lemaître’s theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism.[36] However, Lemaître resented the Pope’s proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[37][38][17] Lemaître and Daniel O’Connell, the Pope’s scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[39] Lemaître was a devout Catholic, but opposed mixing science with religion,[40] although he held that the two fields were not in conflict.[41]’

    Religious institutions do change, usually resisted, but they do. Some at a faster rate than the Catholic Church.

  262. dikranmarsupial says:

    ‘ I’m betting you think it is pretty bright.’

    That would be a loosing bet for most people arguing for its application. It is an excellent starting point for those wanting more than mere legality because it requires you consider the consequences on others rather than only yourself. I don’t believe I am in an ethically privileged position, so it seems a reasonable axiom.

  263. Steven Mosher says:

    “Err, didn’t your FOI request scheme rely on exploiting a fuzzy line in the regulations?

    no 18 hours is pretty bright.

  264. Steven Mosher says:

    “That would be a loosing bet for most people arguing for its application. ”

    it would be non bright if said “do kinda the same or close to it, as you would have others do unto you, in most circumstances”

  265. Steven Mosher says:

    or do unto most in a simialr fashion that they do unto you most of the time.

  266. Joshua says:

    > Hacked emails, out of context quotes thereof and ruining other people’s reputations appears to be OK with you though

    Seriously.

  267. RickA sez …

    “… mob. … mob. … mob …

    … mob … mob … mob … ”

    We get it already, you don’t like the (pejorative) …

  268. dikranmarsupial says:

    Evasion. You know perfectly well that the 18 hour rule was intended as a protection of the recipient, and you broke that be making distributed parallel requests (by people with no obvious intent to do anything with the information) that obviously violated the purpose of the regulation. That is fuzziness.

    It is obvious that the people that made the regulation didn’t anticipate that sort of behaviour. Lawmakers cannot anticipate every possible contingency and exploiting the letter of the law is a recipe for the unscrupulous to exploit others. So requiring a bright line is basically a recipe for the unscrupulous to exploit others.

  269. Joshua says:

    Bright lines.

    Lying to Congress. Threatening a witness (witness tampering). Found guilty. Do time.

    Oops.

    mafia mob rule.

  270. dikranmarsupial says:

    ‘ it would be non bright if said “do kinda the same or close to it, as you would have others do unto you, in most circumstances”’

    That isn’t the golden rule though, is is, so it is a rather transparent goalpost shift. The golden rule isn’t bright because it requires us to consider the other person’s needs and desires (we want to be treated in accordance with our needs and desires). None of us are mind readers, so this is always going to be difficult (bing a Bayesian, I dislike using the f-word ;o)

  271. Steven Mosher says:

    “In other words … deal with it, because it isn’t going away anytime soon.”

    who said it was? Basically I am stating a preference. The preference is for law.
    you think I didnt check the law before publishing?
    you think if there was a law “thou shalt not re publish already published private mails
    I would have broken it? Nope. I like the law. I follow it. it’s easy. usually pretty balck and
    white and when its not, there is a process to handle that as well. The law is a wonderful
    invention.

    but ya, I don’t like the mob. I didnt like the mob when they called for colins head.
    I dont like the mob when they called for the covington kids heads, or milo’s head,
    or Jessie’s head. I actually get to not like the mob. I actually get to prefer the law.
    and you can choose to not like the law.

  272. Joshua,

    The letter was only meant to be a parody of our homeland’s #1 lawbreaker, Small Hands. File that letter under Festivus Airing of Grievances …
    https://festivusweb.com/festivus-airing-of-grievances.php

    Such an darkling abstruse letter at that.

  273. Willard says:

    So to sum up RickA’s contribution – is it fair to say he played Socrates to conflate CC with mob justice. Let’s apply it:

    For the cancel culture.. lets say you are colin kapernick and took a symbolic knee during the coerced speech of singing the national athem, the mob works to get you fired,

    So the NFL owners are… a mob?

  274. dikranmarsupial says:

    “ I follow it. it’s easy. usually pretty balck and white “

    No, as I pointed out, you appear happy to bend the law, which isn’t quite the same as following it (following it would imply consistency with the intent of the law). The law isn’t black and white, if that was true, there would be no “case law”.

  275. Steven Mosher says:

    dk

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

    “The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as you want to be treated”

    Dk’s version
    “it requires us to consider the other person’s needs and desires.”

    No

    it does not require me to be a mind reader or to interpret what your needs may be.
    Well Joe needs X, and mary needs Y, and I need Z, so we all get different treatment.
    No, it requires me to treat you, like I want to be treated

    It requires me to know my own mind. I dont want to be killed. Therefore, assume you dont want to be killed. I dont want to be yelled at. There I assume you dont want to be yelled at. I dont want to starve. I assume you dont want to starve. I want to be treated fairly, I assume you want to be treated fairly.

    IF it required me to consider your needs and desires then I would end up treating
    people differently according to their particular needs and desires.

    Pretty sure the gloden rule is do unto others and you wuld have them do unto you.
    Not do under others as you think their needs and desires dictate.

  276. Steven Mosher sez …

    Several strawpeople. Kind of waiting for you directly addressing your own mob efforts. The irony has already killed me.

  277. dikranmarsupial says:

    SM do you want others to treat you in a way that considers you needs and desires? Yes or no?

    BTW, this is Golden rule 101 stuff that anyone who has looked into it ought to know.

  278. dikranmarsupial says:

    ‘I want to be treated fairly, I assume you want to be treated fairly‘

    As I asked upthread, would you want you legal protections to be circumvented by loopholes in the letter of the law being identified and exploited? Yes or no?

  279. dikranmarsupial says:

    ‘ IF it required me to consider your needs and desires then I would end up treating
    people differently according to their particular needs and desires.’

    Well duh! Yes, being a considerate humane person does rather require that,

  280. izen says:

    “Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.”
    GBS
    (grin)

  281. Willard says:

  282. dikranmarsupial says:

    Izen indeed! Some might call it the platinum rule, but really that is just salami slicing, as demonstrated by the question “do you want others to treat you in a way that considers you needs and desires? Yes or no?” If the answer is “yes”, then the usual golden rule suggest you should treat others likewise. If the answer is “no” you are probably trying to win a debating society style rhetorical argument. ;o)

  283. Willard says:

    FWIW, the Golden Rule (GR) is from a personal perspective, the Platinum Rule (PR) is from an interpersonal perspective, and the Moral imperative (MI) is from an impersonal perspective. The MI is a generalization of the GR and the PR, so to speak. The GR and PR complement each other, at least if we reduce relationships to one-to-one affairs. I would say that the MI is one way to turn ethics into game theory, as actions or decisions become pure strategies.

    Not sure this framework is needed to argue that the Auditor’s organized fight for data freedom was vexatious:

    I suggest that interested readers can participate by choosing 5 countries and sending the following FOI request to david.palmer at uea.ac.uk:

    https://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/#comment-188529

    And so by the logic we’ve been offered so far, audits participate in mob justice, therefore CC.

  284. Willard says:

    The individual efforts from our valiant professor of Classics at Princeton cannot be CC:

    Let’s call it a Fight for Freedom.

  285. Cancel culture a teenager thing

    “Tales From the Teenage Cancel Culture:
    What’s cancel culture really like? Ask a teenager. They know.”

    Science doesn’t cancel research advances, otherwise we would retroactively cancel William Shockley and therefore the semiconductor age

  286. Willard says:

    A story about a famous couple:

    Does it take two to mob?

  287. Joshua says:

    > Dk’s version
    “it requires us to consider the other person’s needs and desires.”

    No

    Hmmm.

    I want others to consider my needs and desires. Very basic stuff.

    I don’t consider it an infringement if someone wants me to consider their needs and desires. I don’t think I necessarily abide by their needs and desires. I will try to do so at least to the extent that I would expect that of others.

    What a strange world, some libertarians like to idealize. Of course, very few of them actually live in a way that manifests their idealized world. Very few people actually go through life with no expectation that others consider their needs and desires.

    I will say that in my experience living in Asia and working with Asians, my broad view is that there may be a fairly modified construct of the golden ruleb(some differences across countries, of course).

    Caring about the needs and desires of others has a superstructure. There is a superceeding structure. For example, in Korea the parents come to live with the first born son. The needs and desires of that first born son’s wife are essentially irrelevant. If we’re having a discussion in a group of how people feel about a political issue (for example), my needs and desires only matter after the older people have expressed theirs – and even then only with caveats (such as that mine aren’t in contradiction to theirs). I expect to subjugate my needs and desires to those of family and country – strangers on the street not so much.

    I disagree with what Steven said about China (or Taiwan). I don’t think that it’s social harmony – that gets more priority than freedom to say whatever you want – so much as it’s pragmatic considerations such as societal progress. Not to say that social harmony isn’t important or that the two motivations aren’t closely related.

  288. doug1943 says:

    Some points that have not been made:

    (1) We had a pretty close parallel to what’s happening in (and to) the US (and other Western countries) about sixty years ago, with McCarthyism. A few brave liberals resisted it — no conservatives did, to my knowledge. (I would love to be proved wrong here.)

    (2) Many liberals in hose days suddenly found reasons to, effectively, support the witch-hunts. Some of them were very eloquent. (If you can find Sidney Hook’s “Heresy Yes, Conspiracy No”, do read it. It you’re an apologist for today’s witch hunts, it will serve you well. If you’re not, you’ll see that gutlessness can be combined with shrewd reasoning and polemical ability.) The Bernie Sanders of his time, Hubert Humphrey, co-sponsored the Communist Control Act of 1953, the most draconian political law ever passed in the US — so bad that it was never used, and is still on the books.

    (3) The American empire is about 250 years old — we’re on the tenth generation. Many other empires have declined at around the tenth generation — their founders were courageous, confident, proud of their societies. Their descendants lost these qualities as they became used to wealth and ease.

    The American working class doesn’t have it so good, but the intelligentsia do.
    If you’re an academic, just avoid thoughtcrime, don’t offend ‘protected classes’, and you’ll still have an easy life. Take a cue from Soviet academics of the past, and always begin your papers with quotes from the Politically Correct ideologue of the day. (But definitely not Karl Marx, who was a racist and a sexist and had nice things to say about imperialism! Most of the radical Left doesn’t read and won’t know this, but one or two will. Rather, quote the craziest spokes-entity of whatever the latest nutty fad in identity politics is. )

    The workers, having lost their traditional spokesmen, flounder about, looking for a savior. Thus Donald Trump. At least he’s not Hitler.

    (4) As we go down, we could ease the process. The US is a very large country. Why not try thinking outside the coffin-in-construction, and consider if things wouldn’t be better if we had an amicable divorce, Red areas and Blue. Of course, we all know that “Diversity is Strength” (just look at Northern Ireland or the former Yugoslavia or India or Sri Lanka or any African country or Iraq or …. .. but political diversity doesn’t count. So wouldn’t it be good if all the rightwing Neanderthals had their own country?

    Right now, a crazy idea. But then, boys demanding to use the girls’ bathrooms was once a crazy idea, and now, opposing it will get your fired. So it may be worth considering.

  289. Because they advanced surviving offspring, evolution imbued humans with many baser instincts.
    (shared by many other species).

    Also because it advanced survival, evolution imbued humans with long term memory capacity and abstract thinking, the bases of reason.

    Baser instincts tend to be rapid and impulsive, without much mental energy required.

    Reason tends to be slower, considering broader perspectives and requiring energy to think and study.

    Not all base instincts are ‘evil’ or even problematic, of course. But technologies with ever more rapid response necessarily puts the discourse closer to the impulsive base instincts, which can be problematic and farther from reason.

    Twitter and the like have increased the capacity to mob and at the same time pushed responses away from slower reason and toward impulsive base instinct. I’m not sure I like the ‘solutions’ but this article does lay out the problem:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/social-media-democracy/600763/

  290. dikranmarsupial says:

    Joshua wrote “ I want others to consider my needs and desires.”

    Yes, and the golden rule is that we should treat others as we want to be treated. These combine to tell us that we should therefore try to treat others with consideration for their needs and desires (reciprocity).

    This is difficult because we have limited knowledge of their needs and desires. However, we would probably want others to accept our best efforts to consider their needs and desires (even if we get it wrong) as the best we can do, and be similarly accepting when they misjudge our needs and desires.

    This includes the possibility that their view of their needs might be incorrect and that you may have better knowledge of them.

    The golden rule is a good start, and probably the best thing we can do in many/most situations, AFAICS.

  291. dikranmarsupial says:

    Willard, the article isn’t available in the EU, I suspect lawyers may be involved ;o)

  292. Joshua says:

    Dikran –

    > Yes, and the golden rule is that we should treat others as we want to be treated. These combine to tell us that we should therefore try to treat others with consideration for their needs and desires (reciprocity).

    Yes, that was the point I was making – in contrast to Steven’s “No.”

  293. Joshua says:

    doug –

    > (1) We had a pretty close parallel to what’s happening in (and to) the US (and other Western countries) about sixty years ago, with McCarthyism.

    There are many ways in which the parallel breaks down.

    The most obvious is that with Mccarthyism, it was the elite and powerful who were using state power to silence a relatively powerless minority, in service of maintaining the status quo of inequality.

  294. dikranmarsupial says:

    Joshua, apologies, I tend to be a bit literal and don’t pick up on subtext or nuance, which is why I have to think about things like reciprocity rather than just doing it!

  295. TE,

    Twitter and the like have increased the capacity to mob and at the same time pushed responses away from slower reason and toward impulsive base instinct. I’m not sure I like the ‘solutions’ but this article does lay out the problem:

    What about the possibility that social media has provided a platform for those who, in the past, were largely excluded? Could it be that this is seen as an unacceptable challenge to those who’ve typically controlled the public narrative?

  296. Willard says:

    > Right now, a crazy idea.

    Separation is at least as old as Canada, Doug, a country that is somehow not included in your list of territories England once occupied or still does.

    Once you entertain old ideas you frame as new anyone can take part in your conservative project. So anyone could have a stake in the Red states you’d wish. The process can go in the other direction too, as there are many shades of Red.

    I asked earlier that we respect a no-gender-trolling truce. No more sideswipe to that effect, please.

  297. Joshua says:

    Dikran –

    > accept our best efforts to consider their needs and desires (even if we get it wrong) as the best we can do, and be similarly accepting when they misjudge our needs and desires.

    Indeed, this is a difficult space that you describe there (micro-aggressions, and all). Worthy of discussion, imo, as a society.

  298. Joshua says:

    TE –

    > Twitter and the like have increased the capacity to mob and at the same time pushed responses away from slower reason and toward impulsive base instinct.

    I’m skeptical of theories of evolutionary psychology. They mostly seem like just-so stories to me. What is it isn’t “base instinct” seems rather complicated to me. For example, i think that cooperation and friendliness may be “base instincts” that often get short shrift.

    As such, I think that there’s more going on with Twitter et al. than meets the evolutionary psychologist’s eye. For example, there is a basic dopamine effect. Which might be closely related to “base instinct” but why make it unnecessarily complicated by involving guesswork about evolution? Just consider basic chemistry.

  299. What about the possibility that social media has provided a platform for those who, in the past, were largely excluded? Could it be that this is seen as an unacceptable challenge to those who’ve typically controlled the public narrative?

    I’ll leave to you these questions of ‘who?’ for what I find to be the much more problematic ‘how?’.

    All humans have troubling impulses to which Twitter has built a direct hotline.

  300. Willard says:

    The chemistry needs to come from somewhere, Joshua. Like our genetic code. And we all know that all code is poetry. Here could be one inscribed into our evo branch:

    I fight for freedom.
    You are canceling.
    They’re mobbing.

    Kant may have had a point in setting the bar so high no one could in principle exploit it.

  301. Joshua says:

    All humans have comforting impulses to which Twitter has built a direct hotline

  302. Willard says:

    > All humans have troubling impulses to which Twitter has built a direct hotline.

    There are many solutions to this predicament.

    Make the hotline disappear.

    Correct the troubling impulse with some Fountainhead recipe.

    Ban humans from Twitter.

    Speaking of which:

    An estimated two-thirds of tweeted links to popular websites are posted by automated accounts – not human beings

    https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/04/09/bots-in-the-twittersphere/

    How many bots does it take to make a mob?

  303. Joshua says:

    > I fight for freedom.
    You are canceling.
    They’re mobbing.

    Yah. Seems pretty basic. As related to group homogeneity (my new favorite concept).

    I think our understanding of what is and isn’t basic or instinct is quite limited and subject to bias. For example, some of these behaviors se emote prevalent in some cultures more than others.

    But I think there’s little doubt that certain behaviors certainly are manifest in the blogosphere and among people who are politically invested.

    Freedom fighting is one, as is self-victimization.

  304. Joshua says:

    > > All humans have troubling impulses…

    Speaking of which…

    Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, a loud opponent of government spending, notoriously once said: “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” But his libertarian ideological commitments don’t seem to have stopped the group he leads from accepting government aid to weather the coronavirus crisis

    Prolly wanted those gubment handed out ducats to freedom fight.

  305. Joshua says:

    Just to piss some people off:

    [Snip. No gender-trolling, please. -W]

  306. “I’m skeptical of theories of evolutionary psychology.”

    Well, as with other sciences in which controlled experiments aren’t fully possible, they do suffer from replication issues.

    Still, I believe they are absolutely critical in understanding who we are, and for having compassion for one another. Jung wrote of the shadow self. Realizing that shadow is in all of us and comes from common evolution should make us more kindred. It should also make us more forgiving of others. And it should also caution us that human evolution is slow and that humans share the same genetics with previous ( and present ) humans that fell into genocidal groupings.

    “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  307. izen says:

    @-ATTP
    “… social media has provided a platform for those who, in the past, were largely excluded? Could it be that this is seen as an unacceptable challenge to those who’ve typically controlled the public narrative?”

    This.
    Ah the cry of victim-hood when the lower orders start punching up at the privileged.!

  308. dikranmarsupial says:

    ‘I fight for freedom.
    You are canceling.
    They’re mobbing.‘

    In another comment

    ‘ There are many solutions to this predicament.’

    Compulsory viewing of Rashomon until everybody understands that their view of reality may be significantly inaccurate and likely self-serving and should question their motivations?

  309. anoilman says:

    Dmitry Shultz says:
    “Socialism is Gulag, not sure what is so ‘fine’ about it.” No its not.
    I’m more than fine with public mandated services. I love our socialist Health Care system. I also love not having private fire departments. ‘Not liking’ something is a silly excuse for broad stroke attacking it. You forget that the flip side has its own issues. This is why I told you watch Sicko because it pokes holes in the wonderful private non-socialist health care system of the USA from before Obama Care.

    I prefer not to see the world as black and white as you do. I prefer to see it in shades of grey. I trust my government, but as the adage goes, “Trust but verify.” That pretty much applies to everything. (Oh and never trust the leaders.)

    So, you still don’t have any evidence to back up the notion that corona virus is a lab escapee? Interesting. Let me know when you have more than opinion pieces.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/05/01/wuhan-lab-as-coronavirus-source-gains-traction/#31a0094a6743

    Oh look your source also cites Epoch Times. How quaint;
    https://jamiemetzl.com/origins-of-sars-cov-2/

    Did you read through the sources? I tend to do that myself. Like this one from March 26, 2020?
    https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30328-7
    “However, as not all of the early cases were market associated, it is possible that the emergence story is more complicated than first suspected.”
    If you look at that claim (from 4 months ago) with what is emerging with COVID today you’ll come to realize this statement is totally wrong. There are a lot of folks spreading it who are asymptomatic. That would make it hard to say exactly when, where and how it spreads, and we know this as a fact now. This certainly explains some (not all) of the current excess deaths;
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2020/may/29/excess-deaths-uk-has-one-highest-levels-europe

    I think that if there was clear evidence for bio-weapons we’d hear about it from actual experts studying the actual problem. (I mean seriously.. you can’t shut Trump up about sh*t like that. He’d use words.. The best words! He’d thump his chest declare war!) In the mean time, more people will be looking into this I’m sure. You know… actual experts.

    On the other hand you have made it abundantly clear that CBC is clearly failing in its mandate to provide Canadian-centric coverage. Specifically CBC should provide more Canada oriented conspiracy theories to suit umm.. people.

    Have you figured out why Epoch times targeted rural communities for free delivery of their ‘news’? What harm could that kind of information cause right?
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/intruder-rideau-hall-ranger-1.5634749

  310. Willard says:

    > as with other sciences in which controlled experiments aren’t fully possible, they do suffer from replication issues

    It goes beyond that:

    We at Gizmodo have long rolled our eyes at the often-nonsensical conclusions that some people come to when employing evolutionary psychology theory, so we were excited to chat with Smith about her work. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

    Gizmodo: Your paper’s main refutation of the field is something called the matching problem. Can you explain what that is?

    Subrena Smith: Evolutionary psychologists’ thought is that, for at least some of our behaviors, they believe that we have—dare I use this term—hard-wired cognitive structures that are operating in all of us contemporary human beings the same way they did for our ancestors on the savannas. The idea is that, in the modern world, we have sort of modern skulls, but the wiring—the cognitive structure of the brain itself—is not being modified, because enough evolutionary time hasn’t passed. This goes for evolutionary functions like mate selection, parental care, predator avoidance—that our brains were pretty much in the same state as our ancestors’ brains. The sameness in how our brains work is on account of genetic selection for particular modules that are still functional in our environment today.

    The matching problem is really the core issue that evolutionary psychologists have to show that they can meet: that there is really a match between our modules and the modules of the prehistoric ancestors; that they’re working the same way then as now; and that these modules are working the same way because they are descended from the same functional lineage or causal lineage. But I don’t see any way that these charges can be answered.

    https://gizmodo.com/this-philosopher-is-challenging-all-of-evolutionary-psy-1842248835

    If scientists thought that POMOs were annoying, wait until they meet more robust philosophers.

  311. jacksmith4tx says:

    https://www.thebeaverton.com/2020/07/allow-me-to-use-my-nationally-syndicated-column-to-tell-you-how-my-voice-is-being-suppressed/
    “Although I was not technically asked to sign the letter I’d still like to add my voice, and say that dissenting, sometimes unpopular opinions like mine are being silenced. And I can think of no better medium to do that than this nationally syndicated newspaper column which I am paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to write.”

  312. Doug says:

    And McCarthyism was perfectly fine, because the Daily Worker continued to be published.

  313. Doug says:

    Joshua:

    I said: (1) We had a pretty close parallel to what’s happening in (and to) the US (and other Western countries) about sixty years ago, with McCarthyism.

    You say: “There are many ways in which the parallel breaks down.

    The most obvious is that with Mccarthyism, it was the elite and powerful who were using state power to silence a relatively powerless minority, in service of maintaining the status quo of inequality.”

    Sure, there are many differences. One of them is that the Communist Party, although ‘relatively powerless’ in the US by the 1950s (note that they controlled 11 national unions, about 1/3 of the CIO, fifteen years earlier, and had perhap a million sympathyzers among the sort of people who champion Political Correctness today), this party was an instrument of the powerful Soviet Union, and some of its members had engaged in espionage on behalf of that power. (One of them has now been made into a heroine by the New York City Council.)

    Of course, the idea that American Communists were in any way fighting for ‘democracy and equality’ is laughable.

    What is in common was the mass hysteria, and the cowardly behavior of most liberals, who refused to defend the rights of American Communists, despite their being agents of the Soviet Union, to hold jobs in non-sensitive areas, teach at university, etc.

    And I believe part of this hysteria was because some of what the Communists were saying was undeniably true: for example, American culpability in destroying democracy in Iran. Just as some of what the persecuted scholars in academia are saying is true, about the reality of Black crime rates, of the failure of welfare programs to change irresponsible behavior, about the huge exaggeration of the racialy-discriminatory element in policing. The Left hates these facts and will not debate about them. So they prefigure the way they would deal with dissidents when they have full state power: Physically assault the dissidents where they can, get them fired where they cannot.

    There are other parallels as well: in the 1950s, McCarthyites pointed to the similarilty between many things that American Communists supported, and the things that liberals supported, with the implication: liberals are just slow-motion Communists. This same technique is used by hardline Leftists today, to smear over the differences between outright neoNazis, and conservatives. The ‘Campus AntiFascist Network’ is a model for this sort of dishonest sophistry, justifying violence against those whose opinons might cause ‘mental harm’ to someone. (Of course, not to anyone, but to their favored client groups.)

    The totalitarian mentality is alive and well, and will always find defenders, and those who know that it is wrong, but who are afraid to jeapordize their careers by challenging it.

  314. Willard says:

    I might have missed the episode where the Daily Worker fired one of its editors because of a woke mob.

  315. anoilman says:

    I do love Potholer’s videos…

  316. The so-called teevee show you have been watching has been cancelled, please forward $610,900.
    Stanford prof ordered to pay legal fees after dropping $10 million defamation case against another scientist
    https://retractionwatch.com/2020/07/09/stanford-prof-ordered-to-pay-legal-fees-after-dropping-10-million-defamation-case-against-another-scientist/

  317. JCH says:

    My brother is a landed immigrant in Canada. He owned a factory. He has never had to wait for any medical procedure which he needed immediately. Always, straight to the OR, specialist, etc.. Ditto for his workers. Decades of experience with the Canadian system, dozens of workers and their families, never a real problem.

    As for the Chinese Doc, bonkers. China never said there was no H2H transmission. The issue on the table was, and this is confirmed in early writings of Fauci and others, the relative difficulty of H2H transmission, which was unknown in December and first weeks of January. SARS-CoV (SARS one) was transmissible H2H, but not easily. Everybody knew about it. There have been some deadly avian flu outbreaks in China. There has been H2H transmission in all of them. All of the avian flu outbreaks so far have been contain with relative ease. Why? Because so far the virus, while astoundingly deadly in humans, is very difficult to transmit H2H. But it does happen, with death rates as high as 60%.

    So just saying SARS-CoV-2 in December was known to be transmissible H2H is totally meaningless. It’s gigantic nothing burger, which is why it runs on FOX News. All respiratory virus are transmissible H2H. Not news. Absolutely not news.

    Some are readily transmissible H2H. In December nobody knew how readily SARS-CoV-2 transmitted H2H. Nobody knew it could kill.

  318. Dmitry Shultz says:

    [Playing the ref. No red baiting, please. -W]

  319. Steven Mosher says:

    hmm

    https://jacobinmag.com/2020/07/cancel-culture-harpers-letter-free-speech

    In 2014, the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign withdrew an offer of employment to English professor Steven Salaita after some faculty, students, and donors asserted that his tweets critical of the Netanyahu administration during the Gaza war were antisemitic. Due to the controversy, he’s been driven out of academic employment and now works as a bus driver. Political scientist Norman Finkelstein, another critic of the Israeli occupation, was denied tenure at DePaul University in 2007 after a successful campaign by the Anti-Defamation League and lawyer Alan Dershowitz. He likewise has difficulty finding employment and says he struggles to pay the rent.

    When appeals to academic freedom and due process are raised in all these cases, the response from the pro-Likudnik right has echoed the “no platform” rhetoric from the Left, arguing that criticism of the Israeli government is hate speech and thus should not be protected (and indeed, in Canada, unlike in the United States, hate speech is not constitutionally protected). They also copy the liberal-left’s demand for “stay in your lane” identitarian deference (in which only the oppressed group concerned may speak to an issue), asserting that non-Jews cannot comprehend Jewish suffering and so must shut up and listen.

    Despite his cancellation, Salaita does not support the Harper’s letter. This is perhaps understandable given that English professor Cary Nelson is a signatory but was also among those who led the charge against hiring Salaita. It must be equally galling to him that New York Times opinion writer Bari Weiss, another Harper’s signatory, spent her Columbia University days campaigning against pro-Palestinian professors for alleged intimidation of Jewish students under the Orwellian guise of “Columbians for Academic Freedom.”

  320. Steven Mosher says:

    “Evasion. You know perfectly well that the 18 hour rule was intended as a protection of the recipient, and you broke that be making distributed parallel requests (by people with no obvious intent to do anything with the information) that obviously violated the purpose of the regulation.”

    and also to protect the requestor against unverifiable claims that a request would take more than 18 hours when it did not.

    As it stands CRU did exactly what I expected them to do. Combine the requests and post the handful of agreements.

    FOIA requests do not require ANY INTENT. I learned this when I made one to NOAA and had a chat with the FIOA officer. In fact people routinely test systems to see if they respond as they are supposed to.

    If a FOIA officer had to judge intent ( read peoples minds) you’d have a diaster of compliance.

  321. Joshua says:

    > They also copy the liberal-left’s demand for “stay in your lane” identitarian deference.

    Weird phrasing. Who determines who’s copying whom. Seems to me that people are prefect capable of coming up with this tactic without copying anyone.

  322. Joshua says:

    Weird that Jacobin is engaging with the red herring that this is about “free speech” and “censorship.”

  323. Steven Mosher says:

    so dk, just for the record

    1. we asked for the data ,specifically the an update to the data that Jones had sent
    to McIntyre in 2003 before he was famous
    2. we are were told there were agreements that prevented this and that ONLY academics
    could get the data.
    3.* We had several academics request the data, they were denied.
    4. I found the regulation requireing CRU to not hold confidential data unless it was
    mission critical.
    5. Since others built datasets without confidential data, it did look mission critical.
    6. So we asked for the agreements with because
    if they were asserting stuff about clauses in the agreements they must surely have them
    ready at hand
    7. Having the list of countries would allow us to request the data from the NWS of those countries.

    * 2 academics who were denied, finally prevailed.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14315747

    Now of course all of this would be avoided if the law was followed.

    1. Do not enter into contracts where you get confidential data unless it is mission critical
    WHY? because as the CRU guidelines explained FOIA could trump ANY confidential
    agreement, IN FACT, the guidelines explained to CRU staff that WHEN they enter into a
    confidential agreement they MUST inform the counter party that FOIA could trump
    the agreement.
    2. Avoid judging the intent of the requestor. Turn your documents over to the FOIA officer and
    let him do his job. This is how NOAA does it. Funny story when I FOIAed Peterson,
    the officer laughed out loud when I told her Dr. peterson would not be happy with my
    request. her words “What he thinks doesnt matter, its MY JOB, to get you the documents,
    how do you want them delivered” professional. Props to her.

    Rules suck I know. it sucks that scientists have to follow organizational rules and the law.
    they shoud just be free to excercise their best fuzzy judgement. Welcome to the real world.
    When the work you do has world changing implications expect some sort of process.

    Do you read your employee handbook? cover to cover?

  324. Steven Mosher says:

    crap
    5. Since others built datasets without confidential data, it did not look mission critical.

  325. Willard says:

    Hmmm:

    Data from Trinidad and Tobago is being released against the country’s wishes.

    The price of mobbing for Freedom, I guess.

  326. David B Benson says:

    aTTP — I don’t know what “cancel culture” is to signify, but surely includes outright censorship:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_China

  327. “Mobs are not needed”

    “But a group of people nearby, reportedly comprised of four men and one woman, objected to hearing the phrase and a confrontation ensued between the two sets of strangers.”

    So now we know that a mob is as few as five people, 2-4 people are not a mob, yet.

    “Ramirez said both groups brandished guns at each other, but eventually talked through the issues, fist bumped and walked away from each other.”

    But apparently handguns are needed.

  328. Steven Mosher says:

    “Hmmm:

    Data from Trinidad and Tobago is being released against the country’s wishes.

    The price of mobbing for Freedom, I guess.”

    1. In the UK FOIA could trump any confidentiality agreement IF it was in the public’s interest
    to violate the agreement
    2. This is WHY CRU policy REQUIRED that IF they decided to use confidential data they
    had an obligation to disclose this to the counter party.

    Did you think I wouldnt read all the policy fine print and footnotes? thats step one.

  329. izen says:

    @-SM
    “Did you think I wouldnt read all the policy fine print and footnotes? thats step one.”

    Step two being to exploit any ambiguity or loophole in the fine print and footnotes to achieve an end with no scientific worth. unintended by the rules, and that caused harm to the target institution and its members.
    The BEST that can be said is that it prompted the independent work that confirmed the validity of CRU and the malicious stupidity of ‘the auditors.’

  330. Willard says:

    > Did you think I wouldnt read all the policy fine print and footnotes?

    Yes.

  331. dikranmarsupial says:

    ‘ and also to protect the requestor against unverifiable claims that a request would take more than 18 hours when it did not.’

    Nonsense, and I suspect you know that.

  332. dikranmarsupial says:

    ‘ FOIA requests do not require ANY INTENT.’

    No, I know they don’t, however there is a difference between “legal” and “right” and an organised campaign of foi requests made by people who have no intention of doing anything with the data is obviously harassment imho, and “wrong”. As I said, it looks like a distributed denial of service attack. Would you want someone to do that to you?

  333. dikranmarsupial says:

    SM I notice you have written a lot, but not answered my direct questions. That is evasion, and the reason is clear – you can’t give a straight answer without contradiction yourself. Counter-attacks don’t change that.

  334. A Cyberbully in the Oval Office
    https://knightcolumbia.org/content/a-cyberbully-in-the-oval-office
    “Late on September 28, 1972, a Washington Post reporter phoned John Mitchell to seek comment on evidence that he—while Attorney General of the United States—controlled the private slush fund used to bankroll the Watergate break-in. His response—as reported in the Post the next day—was to threaten the paper’s publisher: “Katie Graham’s gonna get caught in a big fat wringer if that’s published.”

    Mrs. Graham famously stayed the course, her paper unseated a president, and Mitchell’s thuggish line has become a catchphrase for the abuse of government power. Less well known is that President Nixon was later recorded saying: “The Post is going to have damnable, damnable problems. … They have a television station.” Sure enough, lawyers close to Nixon and Mitchell later challenged the Post’s Florida license renewals before the Federal Communications Commission—causing the company’s stock price to fall by more than 50 percent and costing the modern equivalent of $6 million in legal fees.

    Echoing that history, today’s headlines again feature a vindictive president, a compliant attorney general, a threat of FCC enforcement, and a prominent media company.

    Late last week, President Trump—accompanied by his Attorney General William Barr—signed an executive order purportedly aiming to prevent “censorship” by online platforms. The gist of the document is to twist a 24-year-old law aimed at protecting digital platforms like Twitter and Facebook into a cudgel of crippling financial liability if such platforms dare to point out when a president may be stretching the truth.

    As the president has himself made clear, his motivation is anger at Twitter for flagging two of his tweets—in which he called voting by mail “substantially fraudulent”—as “potentially misleading.” The order expressly charges Twitter with “political bias” for having done so while allowing Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff to “continu[e] to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax.” Under the banner of “preventing censorship,” the order is a naked effort to punish a specific company for speaking in a way the president perceives as a threat to his re-election. … ”

    That Small Hands acts exactly like a mob boss is a gross understatement. The only cancel culture I care about happens in November (we’ll have to wait and see afterwards what exactly Small Hands does to further destroy the US).

    Briefs Filed by Twitter, Reddit, EFF, and Muslim Advocates Highlight Far-Reaching Implications of Social Media Surveillance
    Briefs Filed by Twitter, Reddit, EFF, and Muslim Advocates Highlight Far-Reaching Implications of Social Media Surveillance

    ” … Together, the briefs underscore the broad civil liberties implications of this sweeping program of social media surveillance. As we wrote in our complaint, this surveillance is neither effective nor necessary, and it exceeds the government’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. It also violates the First Amendment.”

    Statement from the Staff of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University
    https://knightcolumbia.org/content/statement-from-the-staff-of-the-knight-first-amendment-institute-at-columbia-university

    “We are horrified and heartbroken by the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade, and so many others. Their lives are among the most recent stolen in the long history of police brutality against Black people in the United States. At this extraordinary moment, we join in solidarity with the millions of protesters who have taken to the streets and to the internet to call for justice and an end to systemic racism. … ”

  335. dikranmarsupial says:

    ‘ 1. we asked for the data ,specifically the an update to the data that Jones had sent
    to McIntyre in 2003 before he was famous’

    My Rashomon-o-meter is at full-scale deflection. I rather doubt that is “1.”! ;o)

  336. Instead of cherry picking one essay, here is the link to all eight essays …
    Introducing Free Speech Futures
    https://knightcolumbia.org/research/free-speech-futures-reimagining-the-first-amendment-in-the-digital-age

    “The Knight Institute’s second essay series asked contributing authors to envision new approaches to First Amendment doctrine and to online content moderation. The eight essays in the series consider the future of free speech along two dimensions. The first set proposes new interpretations and applications of the First Amendment by courts to meet Twenty-first century pressures and challenges. The second offers new strategies and technologies to improve the quality and health of the online speech environment.”

  337. David B Benson says:

    Unsure about what will happen when I attempt to include a link:

  338. dikranmarsupial says:

    “5. Since others built datasets without confidential data, it did not look mission critical.”

    Of course if the mission were to create the best possible dataset with maximal practicable coverage, then the data evidently is mission critical. How do you know if the confidential data makes a significant difference without building a dataset that includes it?

    It is for CRU to judge whether the data is mission critical, not you, as they define the mission. The legal system may decide that it is in the public interest to violate those confidentiality agreements, but that doesn’t mean they were not mission critical. The fact that no public benefit has accrued from the publication of the data (according to you it is not “mission critical”), it is hard to argue that the legal system got it right on this one.

    Again, you are arguing like a lawyer, not a scientists. Lawyers don’t have to care about whether they are right, just whether they can win (c.f. your anecdote above – how does the Golden rule apply there? ;o)

    BTW to answer your question – no, I haven’t read the most recent handbook cover to cover.

  339. Willard says:

    > My preferred solution [protocols]

    RSS and Aaron Schwarz died for less.

  340. Willard says:

    Dr. Fauci is getting it easy. Check this one:

    As a long-time champion of free speech, I was shocked and appalled on Monday to discover that I’d been let go from my job at Linens ’n Things, simply because some of my so-called co-workers were “offended” by the lengthy manifesto I posted in the breakroom explaining my plan to exile them all to a system of prisons on the dark side of the moon. As a classical liberal, I believe in the free exchange of ideas—specifically, the idea that my coworkers should be forced into the shoddily-constructed rocket ship I’m building in my garage and blasted to the moon immediately—and I find this kind of clumsy censorship to be extremely troubling.

    As many other anti-idiotarians have already pointed out, it’s a mistake to dismiss my “Moon Prison Manifesto” simply because I wrote it in crayon. Despite its appearance, it was a carefully documented work drawing from many well-regarded scientific sources. For example, I traced the design for my “Moon Prisoner Transport Rocket (ONE-WAY ONLY)” from a scan of the cover of The Adventures of Tintin: Explorers on the Moon that was published in Wikipedia, which is more or less peer-reviewed. And where was the outrage in the Linens ’n Things boardroom when Guy Pearce made an entire feature film about Moon Prison? Of course I can provide a source for that assertion: I’m a rationalist. Strap in for a Moon Prison trailer, snowflakes: […]

    https://slate.com/culture/2017/08/it-was-wrong-to-fire-me-over-my-moon-prison-manifesto.html

  341. anoilman says:

    Steve Mosher: I just read the article that you linked to. Did you track down the source materials there?
    https://jacobinmag.com/2020/07/cancel-culture-harpers-letter-free-speech

    Steven Salaita sounds like a nasty piece of work;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Salaita_controversy

    This doesn’t look like ‘cancellation’ beyond what everyone on the planet has always been subjected to. Namely if you’re perceived as an *ss hat in public, you can expect employment trouble.

  342. Joshua says:

    Ezra Klein:

    “Debates about free speech are debates about power.”

    Yascha Mounk: “…..”

    https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/vox/the-ezra-klein-show/e/75794632

  343. anoilman says:

    I prefer the XKCD view of things.

  344. Willard says:

  345. Steven Mosher says:

    “This doesn’t look like ‘cancellation’ beyond what everyone on the planet has always been subjected to. Namely if you’re perceived as an *ss hat in public, you can expect employment trouble.”

    I support Isreal. I read his comments. Nothing too nasty compared to the things one normally sees
    from academics on twitter. I think if the unversity enforced their fuzzy “civility” law evenly and
    fairly a bunch of people would be un hireable. Jerk lives matter.

    The issue I believe was rescending an offer, so there are rules about what you can and cannot do.
    There are also rules of evidence and the university appears to have spoiled the evidence..
    something about emails.

    basically it not polite to make someone an offer and then cancel it. not very civil

  346. anoilman says:

    Mosher: agreed… They university deserved to lose\settle that. I think that they had two ways to handle that. A) Not hire him in the first place, or B) quietly turf him 1 year later.

  347. Steven Mosher says:

    “Instead of cherry picking one essay, here is the link to all eight essays …
    Introducing Free Speech Futures”

    err linking to something I call my preferred solution is now cherry picking?
    personally I always thought cherry picking was picking some evidence while suppressing
    other evidence, and specifically picking evidence that supports your case.

    1. an essay is not evidence. I dont present it as evidence, I present it as my preferred solution.
    2. of course there are other solutions, you are free to point to them, oh look you did.

    were those 8 cherry picked from the entire universe of opinions.?.. ya probably there probably as many opinons as people.

    When I tell you that X is the only solution and supress others, when I tell this is a solution you should accept because there are no others, then you might have a point

    I like bananas
    they are my preferred fruit.
    I am banana picking.

    get it. I actual get to have a preferred solution. That’s not evidence for anything. Thats a statement of fact. I like X. X is my preferred movie, preferred song, preferred fruit, preferred solution to problem Z. Its not about cherry picking it s about preference stating. you dont like X. Guess what?
    you get to Not like X!

  348. Doug says:

    Here’s what’s happening: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-ideological-corruption-of-science/
    It’s interesting to watch the apologists for this sort of fascism/stalinism try to dodge the issues. I don’t know if they have studied how their predecessors defended the Stalin regime 80 years ago, but the methods are identical. (And the defenders were numerous: both The Nation, and the New Republic, endorsed the legitimacy of the 1936 Moscow show trials. Don’t underestimate the power of strong beliefs to corrupt people’s committment to honesty and truth.)

  349. David B Benson says:

    ¿Que calcelar cultura?

  350. Doug,
    I do think there is some irony is equating those you accuse of engaging in cancel culture with the defenders of Stalin. If that isn’t an attempt to cancel them, then I don’t know what is.

    Of those examples in that article, Lawrence Krauss wasn’t cancelled (i.e., was not stripped of his position) and the Italian scientist made some poor arguments about diversity in science and lost some kind of position at CERN, but not his job. There does, in my view, have to be some kind of balance between defending those who choose to promote views that are becoming socially unacceptable, and people taking responsibility for what they choose to promote.

  351. verytallguy says:

    Doug,

    “but the methods are identical”

    So true

    Summary executions
    Massacres
    Mass murder
    Ethnic cleansing

    All of these are underway right now.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

    It’s Stalinism I tell you.

  352. dikranmarsupial says:

    ‘ An Italian scientist at the international laboratory CERN, home to the Large Hadron Collider, had his scheduled seminar on statistical imbalances between the sexes in physics canceled and his position at the laboratory revoked because he suggested that apparent inequities might not be directly due to sexism.’

    My Rashomon-o-meter is registering again. That seems a somewhat nuanced description of events. Ironic given the talk of objectivity.

    If you are in a position to hire people or sit on promotions committees, then you need to be fair and unbiased (as much as we are capable of that) and not governed by prejudices. If you demonstrate prejudice by word or action, you disqualify yourself from those senior positions.

    Scientific objectivity is not the only goal, it does not automatically override ethical considerations.

  353. Chubbs says:

    No one cancels like Trump and his minions. Speaking of Stalin the cunning, jealousy, + lack of empathy fits. Just missing the brains+work ethic.

  354. “you get to Not like X!”

    I also got to point out that there were eight essays not one. Something you didn’t say at that time.

    Oh and I have not read a single one of those eight essays because there was better stuff on that website that deserved a voice over here IMHO.

  355. Joshua says:

    Cancel culture, censorship.

    –snip–
    A New Hampshire radio station cuts ties with conservative host after she filmed herself yelling at landscapers for speaking Spanish.
    –snip–

    Seriously, what could be more traditionally ‘merican than yelling at people for spy speaking Spanish in public? Little known fact: The founding fathers wanted to include the banishment of all Spanish speaking in the constitution, but forgot at the last minute.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/13/us/radio-host-fired-spanish-landscapers-trnd/index.html

    We’re doomed, doomed I say. Next they’re coming for you!

    Grab the women* and children and head for the hills.

    *obviously, women need men to protect them, not the other way around.

  356. David B Benson says:

    Joshua, your “little known fact” is something that you just Made Up. Quit it.

  357. an_older_code says:

    Back in 1998/9 my wife and I went to a talk organised by the “”what the doctors don’t tell you” crowd at some hall in central London

    It was in the middle of the Wakefield / MMR nonsense

    Afterwards it was pretty clear to my wife and I that it was a mixture of pseudo-science and cynical parental gilt shaming

    In short it was anti vaxxer conspiritard bullshit

    All our 5 children were vaccinated

    Maybe some of the parents there did not vaccinate their children – which may have been the reason my son getting mumps as it ripped thru his peer group earlier this year at the red brick universities of Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds – oh hum, it was relatively mild (due to his MMR)

    https://mancunion.com/2020/02/21/outbreaks-of-mumps-reported-at-universities-across-the-country/

    Should talks like that be cancelled – imo no not really if people want to sit and listen to crap – crack on

    Should it be cancelled if it used an academic setting clearly designed to give it some undeserved legitimacy – say university lecture theatre/room – yes imv

    Would I personally bother to write a “green inked letter” if I had no direct connection to the university/academic institution concerned – no, but I would defend someone who did

    However, if I knew that anti vaxxers, Piers Corby and his GWPF crackpots or flatearthers (and yes flatearthers do talks at schools) were giving a talk at one of my younger children’s schools I absolutely write a letter / ring the people concerned.

  358. Joshua says:

    David –

    Stop trying to cancel me.

  359. David B Benson says:

    Joshua, when you stop just Making Stuff Up.

  360. Willard says:

    Doug,

    No more red baiting, please.

    Even if sometimes they fall for it, it might not be what the right way to argue:

    I assume that most of us take part in on-line and other debates for the sheer bloody combative fun of it, the way some people play chess or tennis, presumably responding to ancient Darwinian impulses. To be sure, in none of these contests, if you win, do you get to carry your enemy’s head back to your village, but you can sure feel the hormones surging.

    However … perhaps there is a higher purpose we can serve at the same time as we sublimate those primal urges.

    http://liberty-resource-center.blogspot.com/2006/01/right-way-to-argue-part-i.html

    Don’t seal yourself into it’s either McCarthyism or stalinism.

  361. Joshua says:

    David –

    It was a Poe.

  362. Willard says:

    Take a look back at Teh Letter’s structure by its order of concerns:

    C1. Sure, troglodytes are worse
    C2. But we should take care of our own, the woke
    C3. So let’s… what?

    The call to action seems to be missing. What are we supposed to do with that Letter – fight for Freedom?

    Now, compare and contrast with the lukewarm playbook:

    L1. Sure, climate deniers are worse
    L2. But we should take care of our own, the alarmists
    L3. So let’s… many things (cancel East Anglia, cancel the IPCC, cancel AT, etc).

    Our lukewarm fellowship does it better.

  363. David B Benson says:

    Joshua, not amused. 😦

  364. Willard says:

    Seems that we finally have a call to action:

  365. Willard says:

    Epic Twitter:

  366. David B Benson says:

    Attempt to link:

    Ross Douthat

  367. Willard says:

  368. The workers’ right issue is something that I was wondering about. It seems that some of what those who complain about “cancel” culture are highlighting is how people are losing their jobs because of something they’ve said/promoted on social media. If you had stronger workers’s rights, it would be more difficult for them to be fired, even if a social media mob were after them. My impression, though, is that many who complain about “cancel” culture would argue against stronger workers’ rights.

  369. izen says:

    @-ATTP
    “My impression, though, is that many who complain about “cancel” culture would argue against stronger workers’ rights..”

    Historically the best protection for workers’ rights have been independent, representative Unions.
    They have a history of fighting unfair dismissal.
    My impression is that few of the Harper’s letter signatories are advocating Unions as a counter to cancel culture…

  370. anoilman says:

    Complaints about Bari Weiss just hit my linkedIn profile..
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss

    I’m sorry but I don’t think the opinion column is ‘news’ let alone something to cry over when the writer gets turfed or driven out. Conflict is the very nature of the opinion beast.

    I do think that mass media cancel culture is a problem, but I’m not sure folks really understand it yet.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming#Call-outs_and_cancellation
    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/07/cancel-culture-and-problem-woke-capitalism/614086/

    Short of actual mobs in the past there was no way for folks to ‘gang up’ before. Bitching and complaining, and flooding them with angry\happy opinions until someone was fired has always been a thing as soon as mail was available to the masses. I guess the issue is that the internet hyper speeds it up, and the memes are firing off long before some people even get an inkling of what is going on.

    This has several implications one being that courting controversy needs to be considered up front by those who would do so. The other thing is that folks need to formulate a response before hand, and make sure they aren’t over reacting. (Because some people will complain no matter what.. you can’t make them happy, you have to ignore them.)

    This played out with tar sands ads at Tim Hortons.
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tim-hortons-yanks-enbridge-ads-sparks-alberta-backlash-1.3100676
    A group of mostly Americans (or so I was told) complained on line, and next thing you know Tim Hortons pulled the ads. Then they saw a back lash against Tims in Alberta where this was fuel oil nationalism. In the end the Alberta ‘backlash’ had no effect on Tims in Alberta, and the company decided they needed a policy in place to decide what kinds of materials they would run before running them.

    There have been other cancel attacks against right wing news media. Namely Ezra Levant’s Rebel News; (The word ‘news’ is used very loosely in this case.)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_News
    Basically people tried to cancel Rebel’s advertising revenue stream.
    https://ipolitics.ca/2018/04/12/625-companies-boycott-rebel-media-impact-unclear/

  371. Joshua says:

    –snip-
    The fact is that rudeness is incentivized by social media platforms; the slow, dispassionate “argument” that the professionally cancelled pundit claim to be advocating for is not. “Social media as a ‘public square’ where ‘good faith debate’ happens is a thing of the past,” the Slate writer Lili Loofbourow explained in her own Twitter thread. “Disagreement here [online] happens through trolling, sea-lioning, ratios, and dunks. Bad faith is the condition of the modern internet.” This is in large part because online platforms are designed that way: to maximize engagement, they promote the most incendiary content and reward outrage, shock and performative disdain
    –snip–

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/15/bari-weiss-new-york-times-resignation-cancel-culture?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    , never seen anything like that here.

  372. Steven Mosher says:

    “Historically the best protection for workers’ rights have been independent, representative Unions.”

    yup..

    I am kinda wondering why Bari Weiss did not bring a hostile workplace complaint. instead of whining

    This is probably preditable from people bringing slack into the workplace.
    exployeers and unions would be wise to sort out some kind of policies on what
    is acceptable within the workplace ( internal coms) and what is allowable on social media.

  373. Willard says:

  374. Joshua says:

    > I am kinda wondering why Bari Weiss did not bring a hostile workplace complaint. instead of whining

    Really?

    She of engaged in fighting an ideological battle. Whining serves a purpose. Speculation is that she and Andrew Sullivan will work together on some project. Even if not, resigning is a battle tactic towards a goal. Filing a complaint would be targeted towards a different goal. Leaving matched her goal more than staying.

  375. Steven Mosher says:

    “She of engaged in fighting an ideological battle. Whining serves a purpose. Speculation is that she and Andrew Sullivan will work together on some project. Even if not, resigning is a battle tactic towards a goal. Filing a complaint would be targeted towards a different goal. Leaving matched her goal more than staying.”

    I’d rather not engage in just so explanations of behavior. I just wonder why she would not avail herself of the obvious remedy. Of course regardless of her motivations for not reporting,
    ( kinda like in many abuse cases) the hostility remains hostile and the system has a protocol for managing these things. Disbelieving the purported victim or questioning their motivations for not reporting, is not part of the civilized procedure.

    You of course do get to speculate about motivations, which of course is interpretable behavior.
    I wonder why you speculate, but don’t speculate why you speculate as you do, even though it fits a pattern

  376. Willard says:

    Coal mine canaries chime in:

    As neuroscientist Michael Egnor wrote here recently, ID proponents were the canaries in the coalmine of free speech. Before suffocating political correctness became a topic of general discussion, in so far as the present climate allows for anything to be discussed openly, scientists willing to consider the evidence for design in biology had come to know the lengths to which upholders of the “predetermined narrative” would go to punish dissent.

    The truth of what Bari Weiss writes can be taken as granted — if her account weren’t accurate, she wouldn’t have quit a plum job like that. Something is seriously wrong with our culture, and thank you to her for recognizing that and not simply going along with it like so many others do.

    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/07/bari-weiss-knows-what-id-scientists-already-knew/

  377. Steven Mosher says:

    The recent hack of twitter and apparent compromising of Kwcongressionals account
    brings this thing to a whole new level.

    not sure what to make of this. Truth is you don’t need access to someone’s account to forge tweets
    and no it’s not a photoshop trick either, just use dev tools in your browser.

    add in this https://www.prankmenot.com/

    and stir in some mob.. shudders..

  378. izen says:

    @-W
    “scientists willing to consider the evidence for design in biology had come to know the lengths to which upholders of the “predetermined narrative” would go to punish dissent.”

    scientists willing to consider the evidence for {design in biology}/ a flat Earth / AGW is a hoax / Hydroxychloroquinine cures COVID19 … had come to know the lengths to which upholders of the “predetermined narrative” would go to punish dissent.

  379. David B Benson says:

    Bari Weiss is a nonentity. Let’s move on.

  380. Willard says:

    Eric makes me want to subscribe to the NYM:

  381. Brandon Gates says:

    > Eric makes me want to subscribe to the NYM

    You’ll no longer be able to read Andy Sullivan there:

    […] it’s worth pointing out that “conservative” in my case means that I have passionately opposed Donald J. Trump and pioneered marriage equality, that I support legalized drugs, criminal-justice reform, more redistribution of wealth, aggressive action against climate change, police reform, a realist foreign policy, and laws to protect transgender people from discrimination. I was one of the first journalists in established media to come out. I was a major and early supporter of Barack Obama. I intend to vote for Biden in November.

    It seems to me that if this conservatism is so foul that many of my peers are embarrassed to be working at the same magazine, then I have no idea what version of conservatism could ever be tolerated.

    (h/t an aeronautical engineer of your long acquaintance.)

  382. AS has made a rather nice career out of cancellation, so much so that they all have run out of X’s …
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan#Career

  383. Willard says:

    BG,

    As Han Solo would say, I know:

  384. Willard says:

    In other news:

  385. verytallguy says:

    In other news, Arctic Sea ice seems well on the way to being cancelled. Record low for the time of year by some distance now.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

  386. a letter to some frenemies at Judy’s Counter Cancel Culture Goat Rodeo Show

    brandonrgates | July 23, 2020 at 10:35 am |

    > These are just peace-loving people following Brandon’s tear-it-all-down advice to its natural conclusion.

    That isn’t what I want to do, kribaez, though it is obvious why you would think so given my rhetoric-to-date on this thread. My actual and hopefully more nuanced thinking is that I want to tear down the causes of the worldwide and local strife we see unfolding before our eyes. My main target isn’t Conservatism, especially nor conservatives themselves (many of my friends and family have good conservative values which I share with them even if we don’t exactly agree on the politics and political party to best obtain our common principles, and I DON’T believe in concentration camps for social reeducation — that’s a disgusting practice), but rather the strangle-hold that the major parties have on both the political discourse in social, public and corporate mass media. We don’t need a viable “third party” in my country (the US), we need a viable multi-party system which enables true-grassroots movements that can find a path to Federal representation without the RNC *and* DNC both having their bloody corrupt fingers in the nomination process. You likely have no idea how powerfully I loath the entire system and the people running it. It’s despicable, and if Jefferson were here today I would join him in smacking sh!t out of the corrupt fools who perpetuate it.

    But not first without taking him to extreme task for his slave ownership, his duplicity of word and action in the grossest possible way, and what may prove to be the ultimately fatal hypocrisy of the original Constitution, which in a way only became more hypocritical with the immediate Bill of Rights Amendments — which should be Article Zero of any Constitution. (And for more personal reasons, I’d really take him to task for allowing the establishment clause in 1A to be weakened from prior drafts. I’d also get on him for some finer details in 2A, but perhaps I should not fight too many fronts here. 🙂 )

    If we could have a formal trial with Jefferson as a living witness, what would his sentence be I wonder. What sincere apologies could he make that the African American community would believe and accept. What restitutions could he pay to assuage their grief and sorrows, their understandable and rightful fury, and most importantly what would he propose to do to elevate them to an equally powerful political force at all levels of government and an equally revered, celebrated and recognized set of their own richly diverse and beautiful cultures. And most gnarly of all, how could we agree on all those things, and implement them in a way that vastly more people than not can all accept them without the feeling of dissatisfied concession and compromise — especially the latter for its evident and real dual meaning.

    I don’t know those answers. All I have are some ideas which I think are good, but are probably all-too-often buried beneath the firewall of my my own demons and furies.

    —–

    Don Monfort | July 23, 2020 at 10:49 am |

    Ah, the soft cracker vicarious SJW’s rhetoric is atrocious and encourages destruction to achieve his vision of soft crackerism, but his thinking is more nuanced. He’s getting softer and softer and softer. Must be tired of jumping sharks.

    —–

    brandonrgates | July 23, 2020 at 10:52 am |

    Two things I do know for sure:

    1) every African American will be judge jury and executioner in this trial. whitey gets to sit in the nosebleeds of the peanut gallery with a gag inside their facemask

    2) that this is a footnote is only another example of my own personal sense of entitlement, privilege and racism, and why it isn’t Jefferson who’s really on trial here, but *me*

  387. Steven Mosher says:

    someone needs to cancel all the cancel threads

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.