View Poll Results: Would you sign an Open Letter without knowing of other signees?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    16 57.14%
  • Not Sure

    3 10.71%
  • No

    9 32.14%
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    It seems to me that there's a desire to criminalize simply having a difference of opinion.
    Endus might not have said it directly but his thinking is right along the lines of what leftists and other like them operate. WORDS ARE VIOLENCE

    JK Rowling statement is violence so she must be shunned from society. A researcher says that violent protrests are bad, that is violence against black lives so he must be shunned and exiled, preferably he loses his job and never says anything again

    Its justified under the thin veener of "liberalism" tho, paradox of tolerance and that stuff despite the ACLU defending the KKKs right to free speech

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Really?

    Do you think I should hold back on opinions like "pizza is a tasty meal", or "I like kittens, but puppies are neat too"?

    Or is the supposed "issue" that people are able to concretely assess that some "opinions" are abusive and harmful, and react accordingly?
    I think you might be missing the point. Let’s make a crazy example… Johnny Smith, an 18 year old college freshman posts a selfie that he took with Kanye West in 2020. In 2030, Kanye West is arrested and convicted of burning 1000 kittens alive in an attempt to resurrect his wife’s fame. In 2040, Johhny Smith decides to take a leap and run for office. Someone in support of his political opponent finds his old Tweet, and demand that he drop out of the race, because he supports people who burn kittens.

    Political and societal views always change over time. The public opinion on this or that waxes and wanes year over year, and what was once acceptable is no longer acceptable. We get it, slave owners were bad people, but when you look at it through the lens of 1850’s America, you get a whole different picture. I’m not apologizing for slavery, but we need to remember that the societal pressures were a completely different thing back then. If you lived in Alabama and were openly against slavery, you could expect to lose your job, be excommunicated from your church, have your home burned by local rabble-rousers, your wife divorce you and take the kids, and be blackballed from every establishment south of the Mason Dixon line. Everyone who says that they would be publicly anti-slavery is lying to you.
    CPU: Intel i7 3770K Mobo: Asus P8Z77-V PRO GPU: 2X Asus GTX 770 OC SLI Heatsink: Hyper 212 EVO RAM: Corsair Vengeance 2x8GB 1600mhz SSD: 120Gb Samsung 840 EVO HDD: WD 2tb Caviar Black PSU: Corsair HX850 Case: CM HAF 932 Advanced

  3. #43
    No surprise did not mention Salmon Rushdie also signed the letter oh well

  4. #44
    Legendary! Milchshake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Giving Fascists Tummy Aches
    Posts
    6,652
    So one of the co-signatories steps out of line...

    And is promptly cancelled, harassed, and canceled by other signees.


    I do love the irony



    Welcome to GEN-OT, have a seat, we'll introduce you to the 23-year-old who will lecture you about how Democrats didn't try hard enough to improve the ACA, and once that's all set up you'll be assigned a socialist who supported Ron Paul up to 2015 to harass you forever.
    "Once bigotry or self-loathing permeate a given community, it is only a matter of time before deep metaphysical significance is assigned to the shape of human skulls."
    -Lady Foppington

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Milchshake View Post
    So one of the co-signatories steps out of line...

    And is promptly cancelled, harassed, and canceled by other signees.
    Except those both seem like critical responses, and not attempts to harass or "cancel" them? Or am I missing something?

  6. #46
    Imagine if when the Covington Kids were accused as racist nazis, they were never allowed to show the truth of that day. All those post from concerned left wingers calling for harm to those kids, never retracted. All because they were labeled something they are not and never given the opportunity to voice their side. That's what this cancel culture is. A means to silence opposition, to never let them have their say and i am glad this letter is signed by many of opposing views. To bad i'm sure that in itself will cause some to retract their signature.
    "It doesn't matter if you believe me or not but common sense doesn't really work here. You're mad, I'm mad. We're all MAD here."

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by silveth View Post
    The funny thing about censoring certain views and thoughts that are not illegal is that it will eventually lead to the rise of what you censor. Think about it. 20 years from now all these hateful views are totally censored and not allowed, so people hide them.

    I can see it now.

    I read about a guys who has a bunch or thoughts and views on things. He believes and wants universal healthcare(free) for people, universal higher education(free) for people, large social safety nets, more taken from the rich to help the poor, safe spaces for people of a group to be together with out worrying about others intruding on their safe space.

    Here is the problem with censoring the legal but hateful views.

    He is a full on racist. He is a white supremacist. What lack of debate and and the over censoring of his horrible thoughts would do, is cause him to hide it.

    So then as he rises up and maybe goes into politics and rises through the government gathers power and then implements his racist ideas and people would have brought it on themselves. Why? Because they forced people like him to hide their hateful views.

    When views you find hateful are just censored or removed from the dialog, you lose 2 things.

    The first is the ability to debate and prove that the view is wrong and maybe change their mind to something better. Maybe even reach others that think the same.

    The second is that you simply lose the ability to even know that the person has those hateful ideas. That is even worse because then you won't even know he is opposite you until its to late.
    If white supremacy could be stopped by debate, it would have been centuries ago.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by NED funded View Post
    Endus might not have said it directly but his thinking is right along the lines of what leftists and other like them operate. WORDS ARE VIOLENCE

    JK Rowling statement is violence so she must be shunned from society. A researcher says that violent protrests are bad, that is violence against black lives so he must be shunned and exiled, preferably he loses his job and never says anything again

    Its justified under the thin veener of "liberalism" tho, paradox of tolerance and that stuff despite the ACLU defending the KKKs right to free speech
    I mean, what convinced you that trans people and black people were subhuman in the first place?

    Also, if words can't be dangerous, why haven't any of these publications given op-ed columns to communists?
    MMO-Champion Off-Topic's voice of reason.
    If you're mad at me, rest assured it's only because I'm smarter than you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brexitexit View Post
    I am the total opposite of a cuck.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Milchshake View Post
    So one of the co-signatories steps out of line...

    And is promptly cancelled, harassed, and canceled by other signees.


    I do love the irony



    This is exactly the problem I have with Rowling. She starts out in a valid place, condemns certain practices and then proceeds to mindlessly practice exactly what she just condemned. Opinions and views aside, I am honestly shocked at her stupidity. I really thought more of her. What a hill to die on. The things she could've done.

  9. #49
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    64,373
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    The response isn't to appeal to emotion and populist rhetoric.
    I don't see that I was, really.

    "You're arguing X and Y, and that makes you a shithead" isn't really an appeal to emotion. It's emotional, but when we're talking about issues of basic human decency, emotion is basically warranted. But it does not rely on emotion; that emotion emerges from the rationality of the argument.

    "You're a shithead, so it doesn't matter what you say", that's an appeal to emotion and an ad hominem. I agree that's irrational, but it's not what I was talking about.

    Saying "Your arguments are shit GTFO OFF THE STAGE!" is, again, a response tailored to a social media world, and ultimately useless. Just like the ad hominem attack of classical times, it doesn't do anything but entrench your rhetorical opponent even further in their opinion.
    I've said this before and I'll repeat it again, here.

    The goal of debate, whether it is academic debate or the public marketplace of ideas, is not, ever, to convince your opponent that they are wrong.

    It is to convince the judges and audience that they are wrong.

    Academic debates don't ever end with one side conceding defeat. There's a panel of judges assessing points and value of arguments. They're the audience the arguments are meant to convince, not the other team.

    Also, I never said I want to "force" people to associate with opinions they're opposed to.
    To clarify, that's the argument of those signing this letter. That employers should not be firing people for being racist on social media. That nobody should be disinvited from a campus talk because they made a point of denigating and abusing transgender people. That we should overlook those things, in the name of free speech.

    In re: employment of Nazis, I have no problem with informing employers of exactly who they employ, and if they then choose to fire that person, I have no problem with that, either.
    See, the signers of this letter do. Hence my vitriol.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehealadin View Post
    However suggesting that biological sex is real isn't the same as being a Nazi, that it is classed as being in the same area beyond the pale is utterly insane and deranging.
    If you're claiming that biological sex is an immutable binary, then you're making an unscientific claim with the sole purpose of impugning intersex and transgender people.

    "Biological sex" as an argument comes up in the same kinds of context as "race realism", and for the same reasons; it's an attempt to put a false face on irrational and meritless hate, and pretend that it's somehow fact. When it so clearly is not.

    There are some very potent mobs out there that cannot and will not see nuance, the world is monochrome to them, and rights issues are weapons for crushing people. I know I can't change your mind on that point, you are in deep and are a true believer, but to suggest that this is simply people wanting to be "bigots" (as defined by radical far left extremists, which puts it on shaky ground), jumping straight to Nazism (and largely sticking to that example) as if that is what most of those people are known for, or placing their beliefs in the same ball park, I mean if you are seriously suggesting that Salman Rushdie writing a novel that offended Muslims/JK Rowling stating the fact that biological sex is real and that there are issues surrounding trans women and spaces that need to be discussed (and biological women shouldn't be simply sidelined and told to shut up) is the same as trying to start a campaign of genocide and racial purity then you are in deeper than I thought, and that is what you seem to be doing by dismissing them and jumping straight to Nazis, as if that is what these people are/akin to.
    You're really focusing on Nazis a lot, for some reason. And you seem to be trying to make the case of "hey, they're not shoveling Jews into ovens right now, so it's not that bad". I'm well aware there are gradations of evil. But if you're at a 2/10 on the scale of evil, such as TERFs like Rowling, as opposed to the 10/10 of Nazis, you're still engaging in evil. You are victimizing innocent people because it pleases you to do so. That's all TERFs have to justify their stance; hostility and a desire to harm people they hate irrationally. Sure, that's not "shoving people into literal ovens" levels of evil, but let's not pretend they're innocent or their bullshit should be accepted.

    0/10 on the scale of evil is what's acceptable. Anything more warrants being attacked on those grounds.

    Numbers, obviously, completely made up to try and not have you suggest I am exaggerating and using hyperbole.

    Treating everything that doesn't fit in with your own world view as Nazism, calling everything Nazism
    I legitimately do not think this is happening, and it's certainly not something I was doing.

    Ending by talking about totalitarianism, fucking whoosh man. There is such a thing as far left totalitarianism. I know it is Wikipedia, and some of these might be debatable (either by presence or absence), but you might notice that a particular wing of the political divide is better represented than others when it comes to totalitarian regimes (and don't bother coming back with a No True Scotsman).
    Where did I mention the right wing exclusively in talking about totalitarianism? You seem to be attacking a straw man.

    Nothing I've been proposing has any connection to totalitarian thinking. In fact, I'm arguing against legislative action, here.

    Quote Originally Posted by NED funded View Post
    Endus might not have said it directly but his thinking is right along the lines of what leftists and other like them operate. WORDS ARE VIOLENCE
    Better phrased as "WORDS CAN CAUSE HARM".

    Which is a statement that is considered basically a universal truth throughout the Western legislative realm. It's why libel and slander are illegal.

    So it's not only not an extreme statement, it's the default status quo. A status quo dating back centuries.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    I mean, what convinced you that trans people and black people were subhuman in the first place?

    Also, if words can't be dangerous, why haven't any of these publications given op-ed columns to communists?
    You could've just asked me what events I'm talking about rather than claiming that I or the person Im talking about think black people are subhuman???

    David Shor is a 28-year-old political data analyst and social democrat who worked for President Obama’s reelection campaign. On May 28, Shor tweeted out a short summary of a paper by Princeton professor Omar Wasow. The research compiled by Wasow analyzed public opinion in the 1960s, and found violent and nonviolent protest tactics had contradictory effects. Shor’s synopsis was straightforward:
    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020...es-bennet.html

    You can read about it here

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Except those both seem like critical responses, and not attempts to harass or "cancel" them? Or am I missing something?
    I'm more surprised that Chomsky is being mentioned as if he was a bad person or something

    Like I disagree with the dude but he is anything but a "problematic" person. Weird stuff

  11. #51
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    64,373
    Quote Originally Posted by NED funded View Post
    I'm more surprised that Chomsky is being mentioned as if he was a bad person or something

    Like I disagree with the dude but he is anything but a "problematic" person. Weird stuff
    Boylan mentions Chomsky, Steinem, and Atwood as people they respect and thus were willing to give the letter the best possible interpretation if those three had signed on to it. They weren't condemning Chomsky at all.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Boylan mentions Chomsky, Steinem, and Atwood as people they respect and thus were willing to give the letter the best possible interpretation if those three had signed on to it. They weren't condemning Chomsky at all.
    Oh yeah my bad. Ty for the correction

  13. #53
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Late Capitalism
    Posts
    51,585
    No. It’s rich TERFs and their facile friends complaining about people being mean to them online.
    "Multiculturalism has failed!" angrily types a person of European descent living in the Americas in a Germanic language using Roman characters on a device coded with Arabic numerals before leaving in a huff to go watch cartoons made in Japan.

  14. #54
    The Lightbringer GreenGoldSharpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    3,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Except those both seem like critical responses, and not attempts to harass or "cancel" them? Or am I missing something?
    Singal, in particular, has a really bad reputation of harassing trans journalists and Katelyn Burns has suggested he repeatedly emailed her boss. We're not exactly talking about nice people here.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    No. It’s rich TERFs and their facile friends complaining about people being mean to them online.
    You'll note that no one who defends Rowling will ever note the UK is likely to announce a potty police policy.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenGoldSharpie View Post
    Singal, in particular, has a really bad reputation of harassing trans journalists and Katelyn Burns has suggested he repeatedly emailed her boss. We're not exactly talking about nice people here.
    I'm going off the tweets he linked, and neither shows anything other than criticisms. If there's more than I'm happy to look, but I can't divine its existence out of nothingness. I don't know who most of these people even are.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by NED funded View Post
    Endus might not have said it directly but his thinking is right along the lines of what leftists and other like them operate. WORDS ARE VIOLENCE

    JK Rowling statement is violence so she must be shunned from society. A researcher says that violent protrests are bad, that is violence against black lives so he must be shunned and exiled, preferably he loses his job and never says anything again

    Its justified under the thin veener of "liberalism" tho, paradox of tolerance and that stuff despite the ACLU defending the KKKs right to free speech
    Or, maybe she can be shunned, because that's what freedom of speech is all about.

    It's no different than if someone is screaming racist shit. She's free to her speech, and others are free to mock her, ignore her, or tell the world she's a useless twatwaffle.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.

  17. #57
    The Lightbringer GreenGoldSharpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    3,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I'm going off the tweets he linked, and neither shows anything other than criticisms. If there's more than I'm happy to look, but I can't divine its existence out of nothingness. I don't know who most of these people even are.
    That's part of what this debate is even about. Trans "discussions" online are incredibly toxic and rip through trans people at an epic rate, and when the idea is raised that a lot of these people are particularly abusive (and not just to trans folks) to the point where one of the leading trans voices posted in frustration that she may leave the UK it's all just shouted down.

    I actually unfollowed every UK trans woman on twitter yesterday for my own mental health. Margaret Atwood too. I can't deal with the toxicity aimed at them.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenGoldSharpie View Post
    That's part of what this debate is even about. Trans "discussions" online are incredibly toxic and rip through trans people at an epic rate, and when the idea is raised that a lot of these people are particularly abusive (and not just to trans folks) to the point where one of the leading trans voices posted in frustration that she may leave the UK it's all just shouted down.

    I actually unfollowed every UK trans woman on twitter yesterday for my own mental health. Margaret Atwood too. I can't deal with the toxicity aimed at them.
    I must be missing something here, because I'm not sure how we got from a few people criticizing one of the signatories for withdrawing being framed as "harassing/canceling" to this? Again, I was specifically responding to those two tweets, nothing more.

    I'm well aware of how awful "discussions" related to the trans community can get online and it fucking infuriates me (Rowling can kindly fuck right the hell off). I feel you, but I'm not sure what relevance this has to me pointing out that a poster is (again) leaning on hyperbole or outright sensational falsehoods to try to make a point.

  19. #59
    The Lightbringer GreenGoldSharpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    3,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I must be missing something here, because I'm not sure how we got from a few people criticizing one of the signatories for withdrawing being framed as "harassing/canceling" to this? Again, I was specifically responding to those two tweets, nothing more.
    Right, and I'm simply elaborating on the point of why these sorts aren't really the free speech warriors they claim to be. Singal, in particular, is a really nasty case. I think that alone could bring questions about a vaguely worded letter by an institution that has a lot of problems in house as it is (which I outlined early in this discussion). It makes the entire concept questionable for some people.

    I'm well aware of how awful "discussions" related to the trans community can get online and it fucking infuriates me (Rowling can kindly fuck right the hell off). I feel you, but I'm not sure what relevance this has to me pointing out that a poster is (again) leaning on hyperbole or outright sensational falsehoods to try to make a point.
    Like I said, I'm elaborating on what milch said and why maybe some people are upset. A good chunk of this is that there are several power imbalances involved. These are some fairly well platformed people in ways that their critics won't ever be.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Or, maybe she can be shunned, because that's what freedom of speech is all about.

    It's no different than if someone is screaming racist shit. She's free to her speech, and others are free to mock her, ignore her, or tell the world she's a useless twatwaffle.
    Oh yeah I'm not actually worried about JK Rowling. She is going to be fine, its cases where a Latino Worker was fired for making the OK sign and the mob thought he was a white supremacist or the one of David Shor where the mob tagged his employer to have him fired bc he did not 100% agree with the left's orthodoxy that worry me.

    https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...ckles/2347414/

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020...es-bennet.html

    There are more cases but these are some recent ones I remember.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •