This is a sad state of affairs where one can't even have a meta discussion about a topic without having to tip toe around ill-defined lines.
In the long run, this has the potential to turn people how want to stay out of politics and draw them in out of necessity, or they may also be cowed into something they disagree with to protect their livelihood.
In either case, it's not a good thing that one may not seek science in academia. The thing that got us to where we are. Without science and inquisitiveness, even into controversial subjects (many normal things were at one time controversial) we would not be where we are today.
This is being undermined by dogmaticism and we can only hope science prevails.
There's no recourse against the mob because the mob doesn't have real power. A mob can't cancel your speaking engagement at MIT. Only MIT can do that.
Also, it's hard to assert that you're ruined. I get that this is an emotional response, just like an angry mob's, but rest assured that time has shown that's it's not really the case. Getting fired from one speaking engagement does not ruin a person. It's more like temporary embarrassment, which happens to everyone. Kevin Spacey, Jeffrey Toobin, Bill O'Rielly, etc. have all been "cancelled", but are back working today.
One solution, at least in America, would be a better social safety net, so that most of your benefits aren't tied to having a job. Losing your job shouldn't be so scary, no matter what the reason (although that wouldn't matter in this specific case, since this person didn't lose their job).
I think the first step is recognizing that there is a mob and mob behavior. Then, act to disband the mob by not engaging in mob behavior, and convincing others not to engage in mob behavior.
The only plus side is they aren’t wielding torches and pitchforks. The mob has always been bloodthirsty, readily dispensing “justice” against those in the out group for being in the out group.
this is the same mob that accepts you as 'in' based on how readily your social profile can be mapped to a silhouette template drawn in broad strokes that do not degrade or distort from low bandwidth amplification because it is already in its most reduced form to begin with.
lightweight, irreducible binary properties, such as 'Y does|does not support cause Z' percolate to the surface where they can be accessed by an audience whose members go no deeper than is necessary to splash another with hot takes.
it costs almost nothing to attract the attention (and KPIs) of the broad, shallow audience that values "cancelation." both sides of political spectrum messaging are increasingly (and existentially) optimized to cater to this fraction of their constituency above all else.
I have insider information on MIT, but not on this specific situation.
In general, I would describe much of cancel culture not as a grassroots movement, so much as an astroturf movement. It gives entrenched powers an extrajudicial process to target people.
Abbot spoke out against legacy / alumni / etc. admissions. I suspect that, or something similar, was the real crime. MIT isn't huge into legacy / alumni admissions, so I suspect the mob got kicked off by somebody else (Harvard, just up the river, is big into legacy / alumni, would find this threatening, and leaderships are joined at the hip).
> On September 30 the department chair at MIT called to tell me that they would be cancelling the Carlson lecture this year in order to avoid controversy.
The department chair should be named as there needs to be accountability for such decisions that are derisive for free academic endavors. Don't blame a Twitter mob, the decision to give in to unreasonable demands was made here.
The comments on Twitter demand much without saying anything worthwhile. They are alumni and that allegedly perfectly justifies their propositions. In some contexts that was also a title for a priestly scholar and these initiatives are nothing else than a religion that demands allegiance. They see themselves on an enlightened mission to rid the world of unbelievers. This has to stop, best would be yesterday.
I think holding these chairs accountable is the best start. Here the mistake was made because they know the smarter ones often give in. That is were Poppers magic words so often cited by the disciples of goodness actually become relevant.
Furthermore I don't think Ford wants to be associated with racism and discrimination again.
What are the long term ramifications of Twitter outrage circles canceling people whose ideas don’t exactly align with the mob?
I used to think this trend would fizzle off, or that institutions would learn to ignore a vocal minority, but it seems like neither of these are happening; that the problem is only becoming more perverse.
Is this a predominantly North American thing, do other countries handle challenging discourse better?
I'm far from American culture, discussion, problems etc. but reading around the topics of woke, cancel culture etc. I really get the impression of the actions of mentally ill people (which I mean in the literal, not figurative meaning).
If it's "just" a Twitter mob it's bad enough, but this is interfering with the very creating of national / world elites and shaping of fundamental discussions.
It feels like mass delusion, where otherwise rational, educated, smart people really believe in this woke nonsense in an almost religious manner and would attack you , even physically, if you're to speak against it.
I hate to bring up Godwin's law yet again but i think that's what some people felt in Germany when it was descending to Nazi madness with mobs marching outside.
"Think what we please, and say what we think—how better to sum up the happiness of political freedom? And the reverse is pure tyranny."
- A History of Knowledge, Charles Van Doren.
I'm starting to think that all of this is a weaponization of culture by elites to undermine political movements and stifle opposition to certain business interests.
no, its just an outcome of the age of information (i.e. post internet) where people who want to be activists around a particular subject have it very easy to create both international and inter-generational communities where everything they need is at their fingertips.
A social movement has to form, one that rejects the faceless internet mob, and recognizes only people who exist here and now, physically in the present.
It needs a name. Movements only catch on when they have the right name that instantly conveys the message.
This isn't going to end until enough competent people are pushed away from existing institutions to form their own structures. Which is likely to take at least a generation, and quite likely is going to happen in a different country (don't ask me which).
Existing institutions can't be saved because with each successful cancellation, cancellers gain power and remaining opposition loses it.
Question: If someone wanted to do a discussion of race and Phrenology from a "scientific" perspective, is it canceling them to say, "Umm, no, those ideas a fully discredited and you're going to need to do a lot more work than a single paper and a pseudo Ted-talk to attempt to resurrect it."
If someone wanted to do a talk on exoplanets but weren’t allowed to because they also had views on phrenology would that be cancelling? That’s a more accurate analogy than the one you’re giving.
> You may agree with some of my positions and disagree with others, but in a free society they cannot be considered beyond the pale.
I think this is a bad take. In a free society people can consider whatever they want in order to judge a person.
I do see the irony in watching those who traditionally used the mob to force conformity of minorities now experiencing it themselves. Saying things like "the threat woke ideology poses to our culture, our institutions and to our freedoms." As if this is some new phenomena that's only now being discovered, and hasn't been leveraged against different groups since the dawn is society.
This is what it looks like when a traditionally dominant social group becomes somewhat relegated.
Based on what little I’ve read about his situation, and general academic conventions, I don’t think MIT should’ve cut the author’s speaking invitation.
But him getting dragged on Twitter? Yeah, that’s going to happen when you write an op-Ed in Newsweek that oafishly compares DEI efforts to the Nazi purge of Jewish students and scholars:
> Ninety years ago Germany had the best universities in the world. Then an ideological regime obsessed with race came to power and drove many of the best scholars out, gutting the faculties and leading to sustained decay that German universities never fully recovered from.
This has been (rightfully, IMO) flagged, so I'm screaming into the void a bit here, but:
- Claiming that you can build a system that is entirely based on merit is equivalent to claiming that you are able to determine merit in a way that is completely objective and free of implicit or systematic bias. This is a BIG claim.
- There is no such revolutionary method of determining merit being proposed - in this case, "merit" seems to be shorthand for "going back to the way things were before all this DEI stuff came along."
Certainly, probably unachievable. I am not really a fan of what some call a meritocracy, it is complete hogwash. If I must chose I prefer it to active racial discrimination however because making admission not factor in some alleged inequality between ethnic demographics is certainly preferable.
Where does ethnic discrimination help? In stoking ethnic conflicts and the deteriorating situation in the US is certainly partially caused by an insistence of said discrimination where undereducated people making decisions that are quite unwise.
If you look at the people who have been "cancelled" the vast majority of them are still employed, still selling their books, and often have even more prestige as a result (just amongst a specific group). Most of the internet has never heard of Dorian Abbot, yet not only does he still have a job, and not only is he still being invited to MIT to speak (just at a delayed date apparently), but now he has a bunch of advocates arguing on his behalf.
At this point crying cancellation is just a marketing ploy that specific people do before they launch their next book.
mc32|4 years ago
In the long run, this has the potential to turn people how want to stay out of politics and draw them in out of necessity, or they may also be cowed into something they disagree with to protect their livelihood.
In either case, it's not a good thing that one may not seek science in academia. The thing that got us to where we are. Without science and inquisitiveness, even into controversial subjects (many normal things were at one time controversial) we would not be where we are today.
This is being undermined by dogmaticism and we can only hope science prevails.
acdha|4 years ago
[deleted]
57844743385|4 years ago
There’s no recourse, no appeal, no tribunal, no council of wise learned people you can go to when the mob sets out to destroy you.
You’re just simply fucked and have to accept you’ve been cancelled, your reputation is ruined and you’re “out”.
That’s all there is to it and no-one has come up with a solution.
dfxm12|4 years ago
Also, it's hard to assert that you're ruined. I get that this is an emotional response, just like an angry mob's, but rest assured that time has shown that's it's not really the case. Getting fired from one speaking engagement does not ruin a person. It's more like temporary embarrassment, which happens to everyone. Kevin Spacey, Jeffrey Toobin, Bill O'Rielly, etc. have all been "cancelled", but are back working today.
One solution, at least in America, would be a better social safety net, so that most of your benefits aren't tied to having a job. Losing your job shouldn't be so scary, no matter what the reason (although that wouldn't matter in this specific case, since this person didn't lose their job).
joshuaheard|4 years ago
falcolas|4 years ago
ChainOfFools|4 years ago
this is the same mob that accepts you as 'in' based on how readily your social profile can be mapped to a silhouette template drawn in broad strokes that do not degrade or distort from low bandwidth amplification because it is already in its most reduced form to begin with.
lightweight, irreducible binary properties, such as 'Y does|does not support cause Z' percolate to the surface where they can be accessed by an audience whose members go no deeper than is necessary to splash another with hot takes.
it costs almost nothing to attract the attention (and KPIs) of the broad, shallow audience that values "cancelation." both sides of political spectrum messaging are increasingly (and existentially) optimized to cater to this fraction of their constituency above all else.
peter_retief|4 years ago
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]
blagie|4 years ago
In general, I would describe much of cancel culture not as a grassroots movement, so much as an astroturf movement. It gives entrenched powers an extrajudicial process to target people.
Abbot spoke out against legacy / alumni / etc. admissions. I suspect that, or something similar, was the real crime. MIT isn't huge into legacy / alumni admissions, so I suspect the mob got kicked off by somebody else (Harvard, just up the river, is big into legacy / alumni, would find this threatening, and leaderships are joined at the hip).
raxxorrax|4 years ago
The department chair should be named as there needs to be accountability for such decisions that are derisive for free academic endavors. Don't blame a Twitter mob, the decision to give in to unreasonable demands was made here.
The comments on Twitter demand much without saying anything worthwhile. They are alumni and that allegedly perfectly justifies their propositions. In some contexts that was also a title for a priestly scholar and these initiatives are nothing else than a religion that demands allegiance. They see themselves on an enlightened mission to rid the world of unbelievers. This has to stop, best would be yesterday.
I think holding these chairs accountable is the best start. Here the mistake was made because they know the smarter ones often give in. That is were Poppers magic words so often cited by the disciples of goodness actually become relevant.
Furthermore I don't think Ford wants to be associated with racism and discrimination again.
Hnaomyiph|4 years ago
rich_sasha|4 years ago
If it's "just" a Twitter mob it's bad enough, but this is interfering with the very creating of national / world elites and shaping of fundamental discussions.
andyxor|4 years ago
I hate to bring up Godwin's law yet again but i think that's what some people felt in Germany when it was descending to Nazi madness with mobs marching outside.
brodouevencode|4 years ago
ITT we flag a post not because it breaks guidelines, but because we disagree with it.
avancemos|4 years ago
prohobo|4 years ago
Quarrelsome|4 years ago
57844743385|4 years ago
To do this they’d have to specifically recognize the problem of mob cancellation and decide to listen only to their own members.
57844743385|4 years ago
It needs a name. Movements only catch on when they have the right name that instantly conveys the message.
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]
57844743385|4 years ago
The mob has arrived.
Quarrelsome|4 years ago
nootropicat|4 years ago
dariusj18|4 years ago
jaldhar|4 years ago
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]
theossuary|4 years ago
I do see the irony in watching those who traditionally used the mob to force conformity of minorities now experiencing it themselves. Saying things like "the threat woke ideology poses to our culture, our institutions and to our freedoms." As if this is some new phenomena that's only now being discovered, and hasn't been leveraged against different groups since the dawn is society.
This is what it looks like when a traditionally dominant social group becomes somewhat relegated.
SyzygistSix|4 years ago
It was wrong then and is still wrong. Which is precisely why unpopular voices need to be heard.
rainworld|4 years ago
(Ok not quite, avowed zionist Bari Weiss will happily have you cancelled if you say mean things about Israel.)
Not at all a new thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fire_Raisers_(play)
peter_retief|4 years ago
danso|4 years ago
But him getting dragged on Twitter? Yeah, that’s going to happen when you write an op-Ed in Newsweek that oafishly compares DEI efforts to the Nazi purge of Jewish students and scholars:
https://www.newsweek.com/diversity-problem-campus-opinion-16...
> Ninety years ago Germany had the best universities in the world. Then an ideological regime obsessed with race came to power and drove many of the best scholars out, gutting the faculties and leading to sustained decay that German universities never fully recovered from.
JeremyBanks|4 years ago
[deleted]
Quarrelsome|4 years ago
At best, its a petty retort isn't it?
dr-detroit|4 years ago
[deleted]
jordemort|4 years ago
- Claiming that you can build a system that is entirely based on merit is equivalent to claiming that you are able to determine merit in a way that is completely objective and free of implicit or systematic bias. This is a BIG claim.
- There is no such revolutionary method of determining merit being proposed - in this case, "merit" seems to be shorthand for "going back to the way things were before all this DEI stuff came along."
raxxorrax|4 years ago
Certainly, probably unachievable. I am not really a fan of what some call a meritocracy, it is complete hogwash. If I must chose I prefer it to active racial discrimination however because making admission not factor in some alleged inequality between ethnic demographics is certainly preferable.
Where does ethnic discrimination help? In stoking ethnic conflicts and the deteriorating situation in the US is certainly partially caused by an insistence of said discrimination where undereducated people making decisions that are quite unwise.
tedivm|4 years ago
At this point crying cancellation is just a marketing ploy that specific people do before they launch their next book.
raxxorrax|4 years ago
edit: which was precisely the core of the argument from the beginning...