I think a lot of people here have missed the point.
Social media has made it far easier to display your values to other people. Rather than led to diversity, it has massively consolidated the range of "acceptable" opinions to a serious of slogans and "approved" ideas that everyone must agree with.
And btw, I don't think actual values have changed. But what has happened is that we have a very vocal and determined minority that feels the need to judge other people who disagree with them.
That is the point of the Village. Everything you do is controlled by social pressure. To give an example, where I am the police now spend a lot of time on social media prosecuting because it is so easy to build a case. Social media is the avenue for this control.
Just personally, I was never the biggest fan of social media. I thought Facebook was a conspiracy to steal my personal data in 2008. But I did use Twitter to build a business a few years later. I would never do this again. You are just exposed to far too many idiots. This was true back in 2011 when I was using it, it is doubly true today. Social media encourages idiots to have an opinion about things they don't understand.
I'm old enough to remember the Christian conservative mob of the 80's - the Jerry Falwell/Pat Buchanan/Tipper Gore crowd. When they went after you, they were vicious. They were ruthless. They wouldn't stop until they had done everything they could to destroy you. Slowly, people started waking up to the damage they were causing - in particular, sexual deviants (like homosexuals) were at the top of their hit list. Rational people started pushing back. Although it seemed unimaginable in the mid-80's, by the mid-90's, they had been made irrelevant by constant, gentle backpressure.
Now, though, the people that they targeted, instead of rejoicing that their oppressors are finally powerless to harm them, are taking up the mantle of oppressor themselves. There's a sense of "giving them a taste of their own medicine" - and if the actual perpetrators are too hard to find, anybody that reminds them of the perpetrators will do.
History suggests that this, too, will ultimately be defeated, but not after a lot of damage is done to very innocent bystanders.
There is a comical irony to how those roles have flip flopped over these recent decades. Evidence of how we humans do in fact have so much more in common than we give ourselves credit for -- all the while these groups hyper focus only on our differences.
There's an odd theory in history that you become your enemy.
Over time, whatever group or cause you focus on, you demonize it so much, justify fighting them the same way they fight you (or you perceive them to be fighting you), that eventually you're just like your enemy, only with different slogans.
That's why political differences should never be represented as wars, and groups of people with other opinions as enemies. Every effort should be made to personalize people who disagree with you, humanize them, show them kindness they do not deserve (at least in your own mind). It's not for them; it's for you.
Wars are bad not because there's some worthy cause that we confront and eventually defeat it, making the world a better place. Wars are bad because they harm the people fighting them, many times forever.
In the free world, we've realized that peaceful, loving, kind civil disobedience is the only way to change ourselves for the better. This is why. It has nothing to do with how worthy our cause is or what an awful thing we're defeating. It's about the stage we leave for the next generation with their struggles.
I am in the same boat as you. For me, I didn't dislike the people -- I pried myself away from that habit -- and grew to dislike the tactics. Seeing them taken up by the formerly oppressed is very disheartening. That jackboot that has been stomping my face in, I wonder if it fits me?
Fascinating myth that we all keep telling each other and ourselves that we fully own all our desires and behaviors. Western secular life continues to betray itself as a species of Christianity. European antiquity had no notion of this kind of counter-social autonomy (and no, that's not what Stoicism is about, much as people are mining it for the same gold they were trying to get out of Buddhism and Taosim in the 80s/90s). Then you read through Levi-Straussian anthropology and realize its probably the case most, if not all, cultures on Earth don't sport this peculiarity. So many moral/ethical concepts in the West, and American culture in particular as it seemingly double-downs on most sof it, are just straight up blind alleys.
In what way is the "counter-social autonomy" that led to religious freedom, democracy, and the end of slavery a blind alley?
The social structures of antiquity (European or otherwise) were horrible. We should be grateful to the people who had the courage to defy those social norms.
It only became obvious to me when I found out about the transgender debate, and that you aren't allowed to discuss reality. Just repeat 'transwomen are women' and anything against that is hate speech. You can't acknowledge they are male. It's insane. So many people are banned from twitter just for saying men can't be women, youtube channels are demontized, and the big Gender Critical sub on reddit was recently banned, for 'hate speech'. Simply because they don't believe transwomen are women.
It's identity politics and this push of feelings and individual's 'truth' over actual reality and data. I've never felt so terrified. You can't talk about reality, about a lot of things. The BLM movement is the same. If the actual facts don't fit the narrative, you can't say them. How can we fix the problems if we can't even acknowledge what is real?
There are much evidences that gender dysphoria may be rooted in biology. Transgender people don't choose to be one, for the fun of being ostracized and higher suicide rate.
BLM: it is proven by various metrics (economic, medical statistics etc.) that the Black Americans are being left behind because of SYSTEMIC racism. A radical change is necessary to address that, and people who want status quo wants 1. to deny that it exists 2. to resist the movement.
The "reality" changes everyday. The "truth" is not constant, because we don't know everything. So "terrified" that you may be wrong just may mean that you are clinging to the old "truth" and unwilling to change.
(Btw? It costs you nothing to acknowledge someone that they exist as they are, whether you believe it or not. They want to be called she/her? Fine. You can still have your opinion and respect someone's existence - it's not either-or.)
The distinction between gender and sex has been discussed in trans communities to death. What's really happening here is that someone claims trans women are men, the trans community responds by saying, "sex and gender are different concepts, we discussed that already". And then the original people just keep repeating, "but they're men, that's biology."
Even from the perspective of just having a productive conversation, if people aren't bringing anything new to the table -- if it's just noise -- then I think that both individuals and communities have the right to filter out that noise. The marketplace of ideas should filter out arguments that can't evolve or respond to new ideas.
If I show up in a science forum and start claiming that evolution is crazy because "no one was alive back then to see it", at first I might get honest responses. But if afterwards I just keep saying the same thing again, eventually the community might decide that it's not their job to get me over that hurdle. And it's fine for them to decide who they want to engage with, there is no Right to Communicate without the Right to Filter[0].
If someone wants to bring a genuinely new argument to the table that doesn't ignore trans responses that have already been given, then maybe there's something to be said there. But I'm honestly really unimpressed with most anti-trans arguments that I hear online, I think most of them add nothing to the conversation at all.
There is very little actual debate about facts, whether the facts of biological sex or the facts of personal identity, when it comes to the “transgender debate”. There is only a moral disagreement about what matters in how we should relate to people, traditional stereotypes based on expectations around gender presentation tied to biological sex or personal identity.
I feel that you're entitled to your opinion that transwomen are men but why shouldn't you be subject to the opinion of other people? If Reddit decides it's not the sort of content they want to allow on their site then I see nothing wrong with them removing it.
You're free to register transwomen-are-men.com or get-the-blm-facts.com where you can discuss your beliefs to your heart's content with others who share your opinion.
Finally I would point out that "womaness" is a mental and social construct so I'm not sure what facts there are to quibble about. If people were claiming that transwomen are of the female sex then that is obviously factually incorrect.
I notice that people who claim that we can’t talk about the facts rarely present facts. What are these facts that prove that transwomen aren’t women? Show me the data.
> So many people are banned from twitter just for saying men can't be women, youtube channels are demontized, and the big Gender Critical sub on reddit was recently banned, for 'hate speech'.
No, that's not why people get banned. They get banned because a portion of the gender critical crowd insist on harassment, sometimes taking that to people's workplaces.
Trans people are killing themselves at alarming rates along with a slew of other issues. Why is your ability to disagree with them more important than their lives?
Trans people are killing themselves at alarming rates along with a slew of other issues. Why is spreading your version of reality more important than their lives?
Of course you can discuss the topics. But you aren't discussing the topic if you are just dismiss someones feelings because you don't feel the same way and can't understand how someone could.
>Simply because they don't believe transwomen are women
"Simply".. really? And before too long ago people "simply" didn't believe that a man could be attracted to another man.
It's ok to discuss the topic, but how can you expect to not sound like a complete bigot if your premise boils down to "I don't believe how you feel"
>It's identity politics and this push of feelings and individual's 'truth' over actual reality and data
That makes no sense. A man telling you "I feel way more like a woman" is not putting feelings over reality/data. It's introducing you to data that you never knew existed. Mostly because the presumption has always been that gender is completely binary; but it's just not that simple. The amount of gay/transgender/asexual people should be all the evidence you need.
If I have every reason to be "happy" (like infinite money, not a care in the world), but I tell you "I'm sad.".. is that also putting reality/data over an individuals feelings? Of course not- I'm the only one who can tell you what I feel, even if it may sound irrational. The same is true about transgender; that is simply what they feel.
>How can we fix the problems if we can't even acknowledge what is real?
You can start by acknowledging how people feel, even if you can't understand it yourself.
I think the biggest take-away from "cancel culture is bad" letters and articles is that they never come with specific examples. For example, Gareth Roberts says he was cancelled but never say why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Roberts_(writer)#Transg... He said transgenderism is "It's almost like a clueless gayboy's idea of a glamorous lady." It's ok to have an opinion, but if you insist it beyond being respectful and/or scientific evidences, you deserve a backlash.
David Shor is a particularly egregious example from last month.
ETA the Tweet that was worthy of him being fired and cancelled: "Post-MLK-assasination race riots reduced Democratic vote share in surrounding counties by 2%, which was enough to tip the 1968 election to Nixon. Non-violent protests increase Dem vote, mainly by encouraging warm elite discourse and media coverage."
You do not have to be respectful or subject your own opinions to scientific evidence (are you implying that we can scientifically prove what an idea is? The anti-scientific implication behind this is ironic).
Notions of respectability is literally what the Village is about. The irony is incredible.
And yes, saying that transgender people pick funny names is not a hate crime. You may be unaware but in the UK we actually have fairly severe hate crime laws, you can go to jail if you say something hateful on social media...this isn't close (and btw, the prosecution service in the UK has said they will prosecute literally everything they can and specifically aim to crack down on "low-level" hate crime...the bar is exceptionally low).
Also "deserve a backlash"...again, the irony of saying this on an article discussing the Village is...too much. Why are you judge, jury, and executioner? Backlash doesn't exactly imply rehabilitation, it implies judgement and shaming.
It stands to reason that some people, for whatever reason, are somewhat less susceptible. It would be a strange world indeed if the susceptibility was exactly the same across all humans.
Many questions quickly surface, though. How can we tell who is less susceptible? How can we mode this variance? A single fixed number from 1 to 100 is certainly insufficient. And even if we can start to understand these phenomena, under what conditions can we actually apply the new knowledge for widespread benefit? What are the risks?
This comment is getting at a frustration I have with this article. I've come to learn about area's where I'm unintentionally falling into the patterns of thinking of those around me without due consideration. But the article is ultimately a "This is where the tolerant left is taking us".
With the US elections going on, I am desperately sick of this rhetoric.
Speech has consequences. If you make statements that are blatantly:
- Racist
- Anti LGBT
- Anti Trans
- Misogynistic
Then don't be surprised when other people call you out on it and you face consequences.
We're not discussing some random philosophical pie in the sky question. Speech that oppresses minorities deny their fundamental right to exist. Wouldn't you fight back if someone wanted to take away your life?
I'm not a hateful person nor a supporter of them, and I haven't read the article.
But can you explain why you think someone saying hateful things to someone else "denies their fundamental right to exist"?
This is a core argument that keeps getting spouted, and it's irrational nonsense.
If I said, "all programmers are terrible, lazy people and they can all go to hell", that's a terrible thing to say. But it in no way affects your right to _exist_, let alone any other right.
The burden is on you to give evidence, because it's total nonsense.
Ofcourse speech has consequences. But where is the line between critique or disagreement and hate speech? Right now more and more critique/disagreement = hate speach, especialy for those who can't deal with arguments or objective, inconvenient facts about reality.
Is canceling someone denying their right to exist? Hounding someone online and coercing their employers to fire them seems a lot more harmful than critical speech. And don't forget, that cancelled person's name will forever be associated with the controversy, making it very likely that person will also have a major barrier when trying to participate in society.
> If you make statements that are blatantly: - Racist - Anti LGBT - Anti Trans - Misogynistic Then don't be surprised when other people call you out on it and you face consequences.
Admitting this is even the case (which it isn't, as people recently are being cancelled for being just moderate, or for stuff they said when they were teenagers which is ridiculous), how can you justify having someone fired by a mob for something they SAID, therefore denying their livelihood?
It's the equivalent of burning their home, since employment is what enables people to secure long term security for themselves and their family.
So you are actively supporting denying the right to exist of people with whom you disagree with?
It's the "blatantly" part of that sentence which is causing backlash. It's extremely subjective. What's blatantly racist in your opinion could be blatantly anti-racist to someone else.
If we all agreed on those terms you threw out, then you might have a point.
But we don't.
I don't agree with the new definition of racist. There was a time not long ago that dressing up as a black person for Halloween was maybe insensitive but it was not considered racist. Especially since only the people who saw you were affected. (Now everyone can see everything)
Racist used to mean that you thought one race was superior or that one race was inferior. Now it means saying anything or doing anything that any segment of only one race's population considers offensive.
Many on one side of the political aisle will stone-face claim that it is not possible to be racist towards white people because they are the majority. That indicates that the definition has changed.
So, yes... we are discussing a philosophical pie in the sky because that's where the terms are being defined.
Probably off topic but Patrick McGoohan was in a couple of good series for those at home at the moment, apart from The Prisoner, Danger Man was another (A bond like spy), and he also turns up in a few episodes of Columbo. If you like those then try the Avengers - the one with Patrick McNee and Emma peel, there are other series but the Emma Peel one is recognised as the best. Surrealist Spy dramas were at their height in that era, if you want to go further 'The Champions' is another - three spies crash land in Tibet and monks teach them some powers.
[+] [-] hogFeast|5 years ago|reply
Social media has made it far easier to display your values to other people. Rather than led to diversity, it has massively consolidated the range of "acceptable" opinions to a serious of slogans and "approved" ideas that everyone must agree with.
And btw, I don't think actual values have changed. But what has happened is that we have a very vocal and determined minority that feels the need to judge other people who disagree with them.
That is the point of the Village. Everything you do is controlled by social pressure. To give an example, where I am the police now spend a lot of time on social media prosecuting because it is so easy to build a case. Social media is the avenue for this control.
Just personally, I was never the biggest fan of social media. I thought Facebook was a conspiracy to steal my personal data in 2008. But I did use Twitter to build a business a few years later. I would never do this again. You are just exposed to far too many idiots. This was true back in 2011 when I was using it, it is doubly true today. Social media encourages idiots to have an opinion about things they don't understand.
[+] [-] commandlinefan|5 years ago|reply
Now, though, the people that they targeted, instead of rejoicing that their oppressors are finally powerless to harm them, are taking up the mantle of oppressor themselves. There's a sense of "giving them a taste of their own medicine" - and if the actual perpetrators are too hard to find, anybody that reminds them of the perpetrators will do.
History suggests that this, too, will ultimately be defeated, but not after a lot of damage is done to very innocent bystanders.
[+] [-] banads|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|5 years ago|reply
Over time, whatever group or cause you focus on, you demonize it so much, justify fighting them the same way they fight you (or you perceive them to be fighting you), that eventually you're just like your enemy, only with different slogans.
That's why political differences should never be represented as wars, and groups of people with other opinions as enemies. Every effort should be made to personalize people who disagree with you, humanize them, show them kindness they do not deserve (at least in your own mind). It's not for them; it's for you.
Wars are bad not because there's some worthy cause that we confront and eventually defeat it, making the world a better place. Wars are bad because they harm the people fighting them, many times forever.
In the free world, we've realized that peaceful, loving, kind civil disobedience is the only way to change ourselves for the better. This is why. It has nothing to do with how worthy our cause is or what an awful thing we're defeating. It's about the stage we leave for the next generation with their struggles.
[+] [-] at_a_remove|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jariel|5 years ago|reply
Most people in the movement have no memory of the 1980's.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] diffrinse|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leereeves|5 years ago|reply
The social structures of antiquity (European or otherwise) were horrible. We should be grateful to the people who had the courage to defy those social norms.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] disposekinetics|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spinach|5 years ago|reply
It's identity politics and this push of feelings and individual's 'truth' over actual reality and data. I've never felt so terrified. You can't talk about reality, about a lot of things. The BLM movement is the same. If the actual facts don't fit the narrative, you can't say them. How can we fix the problems if we can't even acknowledge what is real?
[+] [-] psquared2|5 years ago|reply
BLM: it is proven by various metrics (economic, medical statistics etc.) that the Black Americans are being left behind because of SYSTEMIC racism. A radical change is necessary to address that, and people who want status quo wants 1. to deny that it exists 2. to resist the movement.
The "reality" changes everyday. The "truth" is not constant, because we don't know everything. So "terrified" that you may be wrong just may mean that you are clinging to the old "truth" and unwilling to change.
(Btw? It costs you nothing to acknowledge someone that they exist as they are, whether you believe it or not. They want to be called she/her? Fine. You can still have your opinion and respect someone's existence - it's not either-or.)
[+] [-] danShumway|5 years ago|reply
The distinction between gender and sex has been discussed in trans communities to death. What's really happening here is that someone claims trans women are men, the trans community responds by saying, "sex and gender are different concepts, we discussed that already". And then the original people just keep repeating, "but they're men, that's biology."
Even from the perspective of just having a productive conversation, if people aren't bringing anything new to the table -- if it's just noise -- then I think that both individuals and communities have the right to filter out that noise. The marketplace of ideas should filter out arguments that can't evolve or respond to new ideas.
If I show up in a science forum and start claiming that evolution is crazy because "no one was alive back then to see it", at first I might get honest responses. But if afterwards I just keep saying the same thing again, eventually the community might decide that it's not their job to get me over that hurdle. And it's fine for them to decide who they want to engage with, there is no Right to Communicate without the Right to Filter[0].
If someone wants to bring a genuinely new argument to the table that doesn't ignore trans responses that have already been given, then maybe there's something to be said there. But I'm honestly really unimpressed with most anti-trans arguments that I hear online, I think most of them add nothing to the conversation at all.
[0]: https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/
[+] [-] dragonwriter|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wavefunction|5 years ago|reply
I feel that you're entitled to your opinion that transwomen are men but why shouldn't you be subject to the opinion of other people? If Reddit decides it's not the sort of content they want to allow on their site then I see nothing wrong with them removing it. You're free to register transwomen-are-men.com or get-the-blm-facts.com where you can discuss your beliefs to your heart's content with others who share your opinion. Finally I would point out that "womaness" is a mental and social construct so I'm not sure what facts there are to quibble about. If people were claiming that transwomen are of the female sex then that is obviously factually incorrect.
[+] [-] charlesu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|5 years ago|reply
No, that's not why people get banned. They get banned because a portion of the gender critical crowd insist on harassment, sometimes taking that to people's workplaces.
[+] [-] ptd|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d_e_solomon|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ptd|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrlala|5 years ago|reply
>Simply because they don't believe transwomen are women
"Simply".. really? And before too long ago people "simply" didn't believe that a man could be attracted to another man.
It's ok to discuss the topic, but how can you expect to not sound like a complete bigot if your premise boils down to "I don't believe how you feel"
>It's identity politics and this push of feelings and individual's 'truth' over actual reality and data
That makes no sense. A man telling you "I feel way more like a woman" is not putting feelings over reality/data. It's introducing you to data that you never knew existed. Mostly because the presumption has always been that gender is completely binary; but it's just not that simple. The amount of gay/transgender/asexual people should be all the evidence you need.
If I have every reason to be "happy" (like infinite money, not a care in the world), but I tell you "I'm sad.".. is that also putting reality/data over an individuals feelings? Of course not- I'm the only one who can tell you what I feel, even if it may sound irrational. The same is true about transgender; that is simply what they feel.
>How can we fix the problems if we can't even acknowledge what is real?
You can start by acknowledging how people feel, even if you can't understand it yourself.
[+] [-] psquared2|5 years ago|reply
It's almost as if actions have consequences.
[+] [-] scarmig|5 years ago|reply
ETA the Tweet that was worthy of him being fired and cancelled: "Post-MLK-assasination race riots reduced Democratic vote share in surrounding counties by 2%, which was enough to tip the 1968 election to Nixon. Non-violent protests increase Dem vote, mainly by encouraging warm elite discourse and media coverage."
[+] [-] Vomzor|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BitwiseFool|5 years ago|reply
I think you'll find that cancel culture is vigilantism. There's nothing to moderate how severe the "consequences" are.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hogFeast|5 years ago|reply
Notions of respectability is literally what the Village is about. The irony is incredible.
And yes, saying that transgender people pick funny names is not a hate crime. You may be unaware but in the UK we actually have fairly severe hate crime laws, you can go to jail if you say something hateful on social media...this isn't close (and btw, the prosecution service in the UK has said they will prosecute literally everything they can and specifically aim to crack down on "low-level" hate crime...the bar is exceptionally low).
Also "deserve a backlash"...again, the irony of saying this on an article discussing the Village is...too much. Why are you judge, jury, and executioner? Backlash doesn't exactly imply rehabilitation, it implies judgement and shaming.
[+] [-] tech_timc|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfengel|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dwaltrip|5 years ago|reply
Many questions quickly surface, though. How can we tell who is less susceptible? How can we mode this variance? A single fixed number from 1 to 100 is certainly insufficient. And even if we can start to understand these phenomena, under what conditions can we actually apply the new knowledge for widespread benefit? What are the risks?
[+] [-] oehpr|5 years ago|reply
With the US elections going on, I am desperately sick of this rhetoric.
[+] [-] TiredGuy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Numberwang|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throw_this_one|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nickthegreek|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pstuart|5 years ago|reply
Equating the BLM movement with groupthink is actually groupthink.
[+] [-] corporateslave5|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] d_e_solomon|5 years ago|reply
We're not discussing some random philosophical pie in the sky question. Speech that oppresses minorities deny their fundamental right to exist. Wouldn't you fight back if someone wanted to take away your life?
[+] [-] PaulStatezny|5 years ago|reply
But can you explain why you think someone saying hateful things to someone else "denies their fundamental right to exist"?
This is a core argument that keeps getting spouted, and it's irrational nonsense.
If I said, "all programmers are terrible, lazy people and they can all go to hell", that's a terrible thing to say. But it in no way affects your right to _exist_, let alone any other right.
The burden is on you to give evidence, because it's total nonsense.
[+] [-] superfist|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BitwiseFool|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekianjo|5 years ago|reply
Admitting this is even the case (which it isn't, as people recently are being cancelled for being just moderate, or for stuff they said when they were teenagers which is ridiculous), how can you justify having someone fired by a mob for something they SAID, therefore denying their livelihood?
It's the equivalent of burning their home, since employment is what enables people to secure long term security for themselves and their family.
So you are actively supporting denying the right to exist of people with whom you disagree with?
[+] [-] anthonygd|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frogpelt|5 years ago|reply
But we don't.
I don't agree with the new definition of racist. There was a time not long ago that dressing up as a black person for Halloween was maybe insensitive but it was not considered racist. Especially since only the people who saw you were affected. (Now everyone can see everything)
Racist used to mean that you thought one race was superior or that one race was inferior. Now it means saying anything or doing anything that any segment of only one race's population considers offensive.
Many on one side of the political aisle will stone-face claim that it is not possible to be racist towards white people because they are the majority. That indicates that the definition has changed.
So, yes... we are discussing a philosophical pie in the sky because that's where the terms are being defined.
[+] [-] travisoneill1|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Minor49er|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] chadcmulligan|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]