Opted in just long enough to run those critical searches
Color me skeptical, but I think GEDmatch's entire database of users was accidentally opted in to law enforcement searches, just long enough for some law enforcement agency to run some critical searches. Isn't this the company that was recently bought out by Verogen a company with ties to the FBI and law enforcement? Anyone that still has any of their data in that companies hands is just asking for trouble.
Genetic matching was a nice idea in the field of genealogy. Unfortunately the lack of privacy protections in this country coupled with the overzealous (and unjustified) belief in the efficacy of DNA evidence I fear has drowned that baby in the bathtub.
I think that the Oklahoma rally is the real reason that the administration is so gung-ho about banning TikTok. After all, wasn't it instrumental in the million no shows to his rally?
Thanks for taking the time to write this followup to your first post on the subject. I appreciate the more nuanced view/stance you have taken in it.
As you might have read in one of my other responses, I do believe that there is a cancel culture though I also believe it means different things to different people. I realize that there are always (or should be) consequences for your actions, but I worry that they aren't always proportionate. As you yourself have opined in many of your articles, it isn't always the definite but the vague that's most effective at getting people to self censor. Whether it's the Chinese government's rules about posting material that's injurious to national sovereignty, FOSTA-SESTA's admonition about facilitating sex trafficking, or simply a concern that voicing a currently unpopular opinion on somewhat controversial subject, they all share the same feature in that there's no way of knowing before you post if you are going to run afoul of that unseen line. The natural response to that is to self censor and not post. This leads to less speech being generated.
Yes, I agree that only the government can bring the full force of the law to bear, but to most normal people, being suddenly unemployed and unemployable is just as bad, if not worse. This is why I believe that it is wrong to continue to threaten the livelihoods of ordinary people for voicing unpopular opinions online.
Welcome back Stephen. Why do you constantly insert an extreme case, one that wasn't mentioned and argue against that instead of what the author posted? Kind of like when the government says that we need this law to target drug cartels and terrorists and instead uses it to go after people with $20 worth of marijuana. You're better than that.
Back to the original point, it's currently legal in many/most cases to fire someone for saying or writing something that a sufficiently large number of people disagree with. You could debunk the belief that the earth is flat. Members of the flat earth community could find out where you live and work, accuse you of heinous crimes, or simply just flood the phone lines at the place where you work calling for you to be fired. If your company doesn't want to deal with the headache, boom. Now you are unemployed and the next person will have to think twice about publicly claiming that the earth isn't flat.
The professional risk is about employees who are too willing to tolerate the "employment at will" paradigm that gives tacit permission to employers to fire employees for any reason at all regardless of how well they perform their jobs at work.
Nice, thought, but with so many states being 'at-will' states, their only realistic choice is to accept that fact or be unemployed. Perhaps someday we'll follow some of the more enlightened nations on the other side of the pond.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but as I mentioned in my previous post all of the examples cited were not news stories or articles, but things I have personally witnessed espoused.
As for what would make me feel that way. That would be experience.
I listened to LGBTQ+ people back during the gatherings and debates in my state about legalizing same sex marriages call for all religious institutions, including Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim to be forced to perform same sex weddings. Of course as you mentioned that should have been illegal, and in fact the laws that have since been passed, first in my state and then nationwide carved out a religious exception. That didn't stop them from calling for it (or still complaining that it didn't happen).
Remember you opined:
Whatever made you think movements for equality and social justice for marginalized people requires any kind of harm of non-marginalized people has you all kinds of fucked up.
I think it's rather hypocritical for you to then write:
…which is where you fucked up.
When I try and explain (as I thought I did rather clearly) that all of the examples presented were things I had personally experienced.
Let me start be writing, as to you footnote: you are probably correct, thanks.
When you wrote:
the only people who had any kind of sociopolitical power were straight white cisgender males.
I think you forgot land holding or prosperous. Poor white folks didn't get the right to vote until much later. It wasn't until the 1820's that the non land holding white men could vote in New York for example.
I am glad that:
I know that if I’m stopped by the police for some reason, as an example, I have a greater likelihood of walking away with my life because of my skin color. I take that for granted—and that is white privilege.
My experiences have lead me to fear interactions with the police. To know that I might be abused or killed for no reason, just because they can get away with it, and police have gotten away with it. I know that my skin color is no shield (and yes I am well, olive). So perhaps that colors my perception of white privilege somewhat. The US also has an unsavory history of it's mistreatment of immigrants (which is continuing even now), religious minorities, and others. I have been detained at airports, solely on my appearance multiple times as a suspicious person. When I was younger, I was stopped by store security because my ragamuffin looks were deemed suspicious, my apparent race provided no shield, no privilege while other black people were ignored.
At least we seem to agree that:
You can proclaim “Black Lives Matter” without ending white lives; you can support LGBT pride without throwing bricks at straight people; you can support women’s rights without stomping men’s balls.
As for:
Whatever made you think movements for equality and social justice for marginalized people requires any kind of harm of non-marginalized people has you all kinds of fucked up.
As a personal matter, I don't. I am a firm believer in all people deserving respect, regardless of their race, sex, gender, religion, or any other characteristic. Individuals can always be less deserving (though not given), on an individual basis, but that's the exception not the rule.
As for what would make me feel that way. That would be experience. That would be black people telling white people to "check their privilege" pulling into parking spaces. That would be LGBT people trying to force religions to perform marriages against their religious beliefs. That would be radical feminists proclaiming that men are inferior, that all sex is rape, that any unwanted interaction initiated by a man (no matter how innocent) constitutes harassment.
The problem I see with the cancel culture (you know the original topic of this thread ;)) is that it is being co-opted by those people you claim are "all kinds of fucked up".
And finally, no, I believe everyone could use a helping hand from time to time to get back on their feet.
I disagree with your premise. I never said that transgender people were acting. I said that actors could act a transgender part. That's what they do. If they can't do so convincingly then they are not good actors.
I also disagree with your opinion that Hollywood should favor trans writers, directors, or actors even for trans scripts and roles. As you wrote (and I'll quote you so you won't accuse me of putting words in your mouth):
Acting is a job — a thing some people do. Being transgender is something people are.
Just because someone is or isn't trans has no bearing on whether they can act, write, or direct. You are advocating that jobs be given to people, not on the basis of their ability, but strictly on their gender. You then bring up the straw man of actors contributing to "transphobic bullshit" and of cis men "going into restrooms".
Let me ask you this. Is there any difference, in appearance at least, between a naturally born woman and a trans woman? Is there any difference between a naturally born man and a trans man? If you say, yes, then aren't you yourself guilty of that same phobia you are accusing others of? If not, then there should be no problem with a natural born woman actress playing a trans woman role, nor of a natural born male actor playing a trans male role.
Depends on the white guy. A poor white guy with piercings and tattoos is more likely to get pulled over for driving a nice car than a well off black doctor or lawyer doing the same.
Sure, I would bet that the white kid forced to sell his body in the projects of Chicago would be suffering more with all of the unpleasantness that society heaps upon Black people.
Kanye West, Oprah Winfrey, Beyoncé, or Gen. Colin Powell are truly suffering under all of the unpleasantness that society heaps upon Black people.
Some people in society are racists, some institutions are racist, practically all are classist.
"White privilege" is the mistaken belief that every white person somehow has it better than other races in this country based simply on the color of their skin. The call from predominantly black people or virtue signalling white people to "check your privilege" is a racist statement. The person making that statement is telling the white person to stop thinking that you can get away with something, or doing something just because your white. That white person, had no control over the color of the skin they were born with. That white person may not even have any advantage in this particular situation. It's just a politically correct way to racially slander a group based on a characteristic without facing societal consequences.
Apparently your reading comprehension has failed you somewhat in this instance. The original comment I was referring to was the author's belief that only transgendered people were capable of or should be allowed to tell stories of trangender people when there are transgendered people who can act, write, and direct.
I responded that is the very definition of acting (and it is).
My analogy was that the authors statement was equivalent to assuming you had to have personal experience in the role/story in order to act in it or write it. Using WWI was taking it to it's ridiculous conclusion to make a point. I could have instead opted for the more frequent casting of gay men as romantic cis leads and or cis leads playing gay roles. Much like with trans actors, there is a greater call for only gay actors to be allowed to play these roles as only gay actors can know what it's like to be gay.
As for an example, sure, Ruby Rose was cast as Batwoman some say because she was a lesbian, while others that she wasn't lesbian enough. Of course the mob got out it's pitchforks because (wait for it) the character is Jewish and the actress wasn't (hmm, kind of like my WWI analogy above). The CW even went so far as to come out after Ruby's departure and insist that they would only hire an LGBTQ+ actress for the part, regardless of whether or not they could actually act.
By total number of people, sorry to burst your bubble, that would be white.
Per capita, that would be native American/native Alaskan.
So black people are not the poorest group by either measure. Good try though.
Certain white people have certain privileges with some people based on the color of their skin. In the same way not all black people face discrimination in all things by all white people. To say otherwise is not only racist but denies reality.
At the time, lots of societies owned slaves. Sadly, in some parts of the world they still do. While the majority, almost exclusively, of the slaves owned in the what would become America were of African descent, that wasn't the case worldwide. Even the native Americans owned slaves. So to base your assumption that America was founded by white supremacists because they owned slaves would be wrong. John Adams, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Paine never owned slaves. Even George Washington was deeply troubled by the institution and freed his slaves in his will. By the time of the Revolution many northern states had already outlawed the practice. So no, America wasn't founded on or by white supremacists. It was founded by a group of people who believed in a better nation with freedom for all and were deeply divided, and sometimes failed, in their attempt at accomplishing it.
It would be truer to say that the southern states were founded by white supremacists. Heck they fought a civil war to try and keep their slaves. It was a shame that we were so lenient with the south. Perhaps we should have moved all the white confederate folks up north, or out west and gave their lands to their former slaves.
Then as now, there are a large number of white people that are demonstrably worse off than their black neighbors. Then as now, there are a somewhat larger number of white people who aren't racist against black people or any other race. What seems to have become popular though are black racists and white people who feel that they must walk about scourging their backs and crying out "forgive me for the sin of being born white, of being born male, of being born cis, oh whoa is me..."
When we confront racism, sexism, or any other -ism based on characteristics a person is born with we rightly say that it is wrong. That it's against their civil rights and should be opposed. Some here even with violence. So if that's the case:
If I shouldn't discriminate against someone who just happens to have been born:
black
Hispanic
Asian
native American
then why is it O.K. to discriminate against someone who was born white? The white person didn't choose the color of their skin.
If I shouldn't discriminate against someone who just happens to have been born:
female
trans
then why is it O.K. to discriminate against someone who was born male? The male person didn't choose their gender.
If I shouldn't discriminate against someone who just happens to have been born:
gay
bi
pan
then why is it O.K. to discriminate against someone who was born cis? The cis person didn't choose who they love.
If the only way you can rise up is to stand on the heads of others, you're doing it wrong.
I am glad that you can write; "...as a white cis-gendered male I was born holding cards other people had to spend a lifetime fighting for."
Not all white folks were so lucky. A lot of white folks live in fear of their interactions with law enforcement. White people are also beaten and killed needlessly (just maybe not your kind of white people). They don't have enough to eat, or warm cloths to wear. Telling a white person to "check their privilege" is racist. You don't know what kind of life he had to go through, what troubles, trials, you are judging them solely on the color of their skin.
For what reason should cisgender people tell the stories of transgender people when transgender people can also act and write and direct
That one's easy. It's called acting the literal definition is the ability to convincingly portray a role, emotion, or set of experiences that the actor hasn't personally experienced. Are you suggesting that we can no longer make movies concerning WWI as there aren't any real WWI vets around to play those roles? According to your logic, only someone who has experienced WWI should be able to do that.
I notice that you also conveniently ignored the the flip side of your argument:
For what reason should transgender people tell the stories of cisgender people when cisgender people can also act and write and direct?
Since there are lots more cisgendered acting parts than transgendered ones, your way of thinking would put the majority of non-cisgendered actors out of work.
Also, people with actual experience in the roles rarely make good actors in those roles. See "The 15:17 to Paris". They cast the actual soldiers as themselves to disastrous effect.
Finally I am more concerned with the everyday person; the school teacher, the mom, the factory worker, being cancelled regardless of their race, gender, etc. I don't really care what the elite do among themselves as that air is too rarefied for me.
I get it, I do, but you have to be aware of your own overgeneralization and bias (I'd go so far to say racism) concerning all white people. There is no such thing as white privilege that applies equally to all 'white' people. Have black people faced systemic discrimination in this country? Of course, only an idiot would deny it. But they are not the only group and I would argue aren't even the largest group, they are just the most easily identifiable. I would argue that the largest group facing systemic discrimination in this country are the poor. But they are a rather diverse group (and mostly 'white', so I guess they don't count).
I support Dr. Martin Luther King's vision of all races being treated "...not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." and I agree that this country has failed. Failed people of color, failed immigrants, failed non-cis persons, and failed the poor and downtrodden most of all.
This doesn't in anyway diminish the severity of suffering that black people have suffered or continue to suffer in our society, especially under our laws and law enforcement personnel. I believe part of the groundswell stems not only from the egregiousness of George Floyd's death and the subsequent recording and broadcast of it, but of people's personal experience with law enforcement, whether they are black, Hispanic, and yes even white. All lives must matter, or none truly do. If that begins with reminding people that Black Lives Matter, so be it.
I would caution you with painting all white people with the same privilege you feel you were denied. To do so would be a shame as it would authenticate those who would claim that the 'Black Lives Matter' movement is anti white.
Yes or no: If the viewpoints being tolerated (e.g., transphobia) lead to people being hurt (e.g., anti-trans violence), should we still tolerate those viewpoints?
The question isn't one of tolerating viewpoints, it's about the reaction to them. You seem to be advancing the theory that it's O.K. to inflict actual violence on someone who has a viewpoint that you believe might lead to violence (and before you get pedantic, by actual violence I am including, physical, financial, and psychological) . Since you are anti-anti-trans, I imagine that puts you on the left (or at least not on the right), so I find your stance rather hypocritical. You are aligning yourself with methods of the KKK and those that believed in such viewpoints as non-white Americans weren't property or that only people of the same race and opposite gender should be allowed to be married.
It's not O.K. for someone to get fired, or killed for saying that non-white Americans should be allowed to sit anywhere on the bus, but it is O.K. to do the same for holding an anti-trans viewpoint?
In the end, as I may have previously mentioned, your response is ultimately self defeating. In the midst of the cancel culture there's a climate of fear that leads people to self censor. It is't the big names (such as the signatories) but the everyday person, the mom, the factory worker, the teacher that has the most to fear. Instead of leading to an environment where you can discuss and hopefully convince people that they might be wrong, that their ideas are hurtful and hurting real people, they huddle in groups of people whom they are sure share their views. They resent the mob, and by extension the views they espouse. Tribalism rears it's ugly head and we end up with a president like Donald Trump elected on a platform of being politically incorrect.
There is no nuance, no subtlety, just orthodoxy. Agree with the mob, agree with our definitions, or else. First there was harassment and the mobs went after people identified as harassers (with or without evidence). Now even that isn't enough for the mob. inappropriate humor, is out, micro-aggressions are a thing, claims of cultural appropriation are policed. Actors and actresses are railed against for doing their jobs (for some reason, it's now wrong for a cis actor to play a non-cis role, but it's just fine for a non-cis actor to play a cis role etc.).
This mentality didn't work for the french revolutionaries and in the end I fear will prove just as counter productive in the digital age.
Sadly I can see where people are coming from when they speak of a cancel culture. You wax on about the semantics of the word censorship and speech vs. consequences, but refuse to believe that these consequences can be disproportionate and lead to less speech being generated. Which is what most people think about when they talk about being censored.
Unfortunately I believe these new platforms (twitter, facebook, etc.) have allowed people to indulge in their worse mob mentalities. I fear we have already succumbed to group think at both ends of the political spectrum. If one were to state the simple fact that we humans are a (insert some incontrovertible fact here) I can imagine the masses getting their digital pitchforks and torches out. If people responded to your speech with more speech, I don't think most people would be so upset. I don't even think people would be upset if there were clear bright lines; sexual harassment, racism, religious intolerance, etc. and then the mobs descended. Unfortunately there isn't. If you express an opinion, no matter how banal that isn't in vogue, there is a very real possibility that your life will be threatened, that of your family, that people will call for you to be fired, or in the very least harass your place of employment to the extent where it's easier to simply fire you than put up with the mob, regardless of your offense or their justification. Since you seem to like links, remember your story on the accounting professor who was removed from her teaching role for using a Hitler Downfall parody meme ( https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200108/17310643703/professor-removed-teaching-sharing-downfall-p arody-video.shtml ).
So yes, while there should be consequences for your speech, I believe that they should be proportionate. At the moment the consequences bear little relation to the speech itself and everything on how closely it adheres to the current orthodoxy. The end result being people live in fear and self censor. This is how the cancel culture suppresses speech and diminishes the marketplace of ideas.
On the post: DNA Company Accidentally Exposes Opted Out Users' Data To Law Enforcement
Opted in just long enough to run those critical searches
Color me skeptical, but I think GEDmatch's entire database of users was accidentally opted in to law enforcement searches, just long enough for some law enforcement agency to run some critical searches. Isn't this the company that was recently bought out by Verogen a company with ties to the FBI and law enforcement? Anyone that still has any of their data in that companies hands is just asking for trouble.
Genetic matching was a nice idea in the field of genealogy. Unfortunately the lack of privacy protections in this country coupled with the overzealous (and unjustified) belief in the efficacy of DNA evidence I fear has drowned that baby in the bathtub.
On the post: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Says It's Really Unfair That He Should Have To Tell Clients And Courts How Frequently He's Been Caught Lying In Court
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving lawyer.
subject says it all.
On the post: U.S. TikTok Hysteria Teeters Toward The Idiotic
Oklahoma is the real reason to ban TikTok
I think that the Oklahoma rally is the real reason that the administration is so gung-ho about banning TikTok. After all, wasn't it instrumental in the million no shows to his rally?
;)
On the post: What That Harper's Letter About Cancel Culture Could Have Said
Thank you Mike, that was much better....
Thanks for taking the time to write this followup to your first post on the subject. I appreciate the more nuanced view/stance you have taken in it.
As you might have read in one of my other responses, I do believe that there is a cancel culture though I also believe it means different things to different people. I realize that there are always (or should be) consequences for your actions, but I worry that they aren't always proportionate. As you yourself have opined in many of your articles, it isn't always the definite but the vague that's most effective at getting people to self censor. Whether it's the Chinese government's rules about posting material that's injurious to national sovereignty, FOSTA-SESTA's admonition about facilitating sex trafficking, or simply a concern that voicing a currently unpopular opinion on somewhat controversial subject, they all share the same feature in that there's no way of knowing before you post if you are going to run afoul of that unseen line. The natural response to that is to self censor and not post. This leads to less speech being generated.
Yes, I agree that only the government can bring the full force of the law to bear, but to most normal people, being suddenly unemployed and unemployable is just as bad, if not worse. This is why I believe that it is wrong to continue to threaten the livelihoods of ordinary people for voicing unpopular opinions online.
On the post: What That Harper's Letter About Cancel Culture Could Have Said
Re:
Personally, I think it's meaning has become rather muddled. It appears to mean:
It depends on who you ask.
On the post: What That Harper's Letter About Cancel Culture Could Have Said
Re:
Welcome back Stephen. Why do you constantly insert an extreme case, one that wasn't mentioned and argue against that instead of what the author posted? Kind of like when the government says that we need this law to target drug cartels and terrorists and instead uses it to go after people with $20 worth of marijuana. You're better than that.
Back to the original point, it's currently legal in many/most cases to fire someone for saying or writing something that a sufficiently large number of people disagree with. You could debunk the belief that the earth is flat. Members of the flat earth community could find out where you live and work, accuse you of heinous crimes, or simply just flood the phone lines at the place where you work calling for you to be fired. If your company doesn't want to deal with the headache, boom. Now you are unemployed and the next person will have to think twice about publicly claiming that the earth isn't flat.
You don't see that as a problem?
On the post: What That Harper's Letter About Cancel Culture Could Have Said
Re:
Nice, thought, but with so many states being 'at-will' states, their only realistic choice is to accept that fact or be unemployed. Perhaps someday we'll follow some of the more enlightened nations on the other side of the pond.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but as I mentioned in my previous post all of the examples cited were not news stories or articles, but things I have personally witnessed espoused.
I listened to LGBTQ+ people back during the gatherings and debates in my state about legalizing same sex marriages call for all religious institutions, including Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim to be forced to perform same sex weddings. Of course as you mentioned that should have been illegal, and in fact the laws that have since been passed, first in my state and then nationwide carved out a religious exception. That didn't stop them from calling for it (or still complaining that it didn't happen).
Remember you opined:
I think it's rather hypocritical for you to then write:
When I try and explain (as I thought I did rather clearly) that all of the examples presented were things I had personally experienced.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re:
Let me start be writing, as to you footnote: you are probably correct, thanks.
When you wrote:
I think you forgot land holding or prosperous. Poor white folks didn't get the right to vote until much later. It wasn't until the 1820's that the non land holding white men could vote in New York for example.
I am glad that:
My experiences have lead me to fear interactions with the police. To know that I might be abused or killed for no reason, just because they can get away with it, and police have gotten away with it. I know that my skin color is no shield (and yes I am well, olive). So perhaps that colors my perception of white privilege somewhat. The US also has an unsavory history of it's mistreatment of immigrants (which is continuing even now), religious minorities, and others. I have been detained at airports, solely on my appearance multiple times as a suspicious person. When I was younger, I was stopped by store security because my ragamuffin looks were deemed suspicious, my apparent race provided no shield, no privilege while other black people were ignored.
At least we seem to agree that:
As for:
As a personal matter, I don't. I am a firm believer in all people deserving respect, regardless of their race, sex, gender, religion, or any other characteristic. Individuals can always be less deserving (though not given), on an individual basis, but that's the exception not the rule.
As for what would make me feel that way. That would be experience. That would be black people telling white people to "check their privilege" pulling into parking spaces. That would be LGBT people trying to force religions to perform marriages against their religious beliefs. That would be radical feminists proclaiming that men are inferior, that all sex is rape, that any unwanted interaction initiated by a man (no matter how innocent) constitutes harassment.
The problem I see with the cancel culture (you know the original topic of this thread ;)) is that it is being co-opted by those people you claim are "all kinds of fucked up".
And finally, no, I believe everyone could use a helping hand from time to time to get back on their feet.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re:
I seem to have ruffled some feathers...
I disagree with your premise. I never said that transgender people were acting. I said that actors could act a transgender part. That's what they do. If they can't do so convincingly then they are not good actors.
I also disagree with your opinion that Hollywood should favor trans writers, directors, or actors even for trans scripts and roles. As you wrote (and I'll quote you so you won't accuse me of putting words in your mouth):
Just because someone is or isn't trans has no bearing on whether they can act, write, or direct. You are advocating that jobs be given to people, not on the basis of their ability, but strictly on their gender. You then bring up the straw man of actors contributing to "transphobic bullshit" and of cis men "going into restrooms".
Let me ask you this. Is there any difference, in appearance at least, between a naturally born woman and a trans woman? Is there any difference between a naturally born man and a trans man? If you say, yes, then aren't you yourself guilty of that same phobia you are accusing others of? If not, then there should be no problem with a natural born woman actress playing a trans woman role, nor of a natural born male actor playing a trans male role.
Do those points meet with your approval?
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Depends on the white guy. A poor white guy with piercings and tattoos is more likely to get pulled over for driving a nice car than a well off black doctor or lawyer doing the same.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would be classist not racist. Your Marie Antoinette reference was one of class not race. Thank you for making my point.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, I would bet that the white kid forced to sell his body in the projects of Chicago would be suffering more with all of the unpleasantness that society heaps upon Black people.
Kanye West, Oprah Winfrey, Beyoncé, or Gen. Colin Powell are truly suffering under all of the unpleasantness that society heaps upon Black people.
Some people in society are racists, some institutions are racist, practically all are classist.
"White privilege" is the mistaken belief that every white person somehow has it better than other races in this country based simply on the color of their skin. The call from predominantly black people or virtue signalling white people to "check your privilege" is a racist statement. The person making that statement is telling the white person to stop thinking that you can get away with something, or doing something just because your white. That white person, had no control over the color of the skin they were born with. That white person may not even have any advantage in this particular situation. It's just a politically correct way to racially slander a group based on a characteristic without facing societal consequences.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re:
Apparently your reading comprehension has failed you somewhat in this instance. The original comment I was referring to was the author's belief that only transgendered people were capable of or should be allowed to tell stories of trangender people when there are transgendered people who can act, write, and direct.
I responded that is the very definition of acting (and it is).
My analogy was that the authors statement was equivalent to assuming you had to have personal experience in the role/story in order to act in it or write it. Using WWI was taking it to it's ridiculous conclusion to make a point. I could have instead opted for the more frequent casting of gay men as romantic cis leads and or cis leads playing gay roles. Much like with trans actors, there is a greater call for only gay actors to be allowed to play these roles as only gay actors can know what it's like to be gay.
As for an example, sure, Ruby Rose was cast as Batwoman some say because she was a lesbian, while others that she wasn't lesbian enough. Of course the mob got out it's pitchforks because (wait for it) the character is Jewish and the actress wasn't (hmm, kind of like my WWI analogy above). The CW even went so far as to come out after Ruby's departure and insist that they would only hire an LGBTQ+ actress for the part, regardless of whether or not they could actually act.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re:
By total number or per capita?
By total number of people, sorry to burst your bubble, that would be white.
Per capita, that would be native American/native Alaskan.
So black people are not the poorest group by either measure. Good try though.
Certain white people have certain privileges with some people based on the color of their skin. In the same way not all black people face discrimination in all things by all white people. To say otherwise is not only racist but denies reality.
At the time, lots of societies owned slaves. Sadly, in some parts of the world they still do. While the majority, almost exclusively, of the slaves owned in the what would become America were of African descent, that wasn't the case worldwide. Even the native Americans owned slaves. So to base your assumption that America was founded by white supremacists because they owned slaves would be wrong. John Adams, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Paine never owned slaves. Even George Washington was deeply troubled by the institution and freed his slaves in his will. By the time of the Revolution many northern states had already outlawed the practice. So no, America wasn't founded on or by white supremacists. It was founded by a group of people who believed in a better nation with freedom for all and were deeply divided, and sometimes failed, in their attempt at accomplishing it.
It would be truer to say that the southern states were founded by white supremacists. Heck they fought a civil war to try and keep their slaves. It was a shame that we were so lenient with the south. Perhaps we should have moved all the white confederate folks up north, or out west and gave their lands to their former slaves.
Then as now, there are a large number of white people that are demonstrably worse off than their black neighbors. Then as now, there are a somewhat larger number of white people who aren't racist against black people or any other race. What seems to have become popular though are black racists and white people who feel that they must walk about scourging their backs and crying out "forgive me for the sin of being born white, of being born male, of being born cis, oh whoa is me..."
When we confront racism, sexism, or any other -ism based on characteristics a person is born with we rightly say that it is wrong. That it's against their civil rights and should be opposed. Some here even with violence. So if that's the case:
If I shouldn't discriminate against someone who just happens to have been born:
then why is it O.K. to discriminate against someone who was born white? The white person didn't choose the color of their skin.
If I shouldn't discriminate against someone who just happens to have been born:
then why is it O.K. to discriminate against someone who was born male? The male person didn't choose their gender.
If I shouldn't discriminate against someone who just happens to have been born:
then why is it O.K. to discriminate against someone who was born cis? The cis person didn't choose who they love.
If the only way you can rise up is to stand on the heads of others, you're doing it wrong.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re:
I am glad that you can write; "...as a white cis-gendered male I was born holding cards other people had to spend a lifetime fighting for."
Not all white folks were so lucky. A lot of white folks live in fear of their interactions with law enforcement. White people are also beaten and killed needlessly (just maybe not your kind of white people). They don't have enough to eat, or warm cloths to wear. Telling a white person to "check their privilege" is racist. You don't know what kind of life he had to go through, what troubles, trials, you are judging them solely on the color of their skin.
I'll leave you with the very relevant White Trash Anthem by Blood for Blood
"I never had enough money or enough privilege to be white,
I'm white trash and society better learn to recognize the difference."
"If your offended by this song, well I'm fucking offended by the way I had to grow up so who's really been slighted?"
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re:
That one's easy. It's called acting the literal definition is the ability to convincingly portray a role, emotion, or set of experiences that the actor hasn't personally experienced. Are you suggesting that we can no longer make movies concerning WWI as there aren't any real WWI vets around to play those roles? According to your logic, only someone who has experienced WWI should be able to do that.
I notice that you also conveniently ignored the the flip side of your argument:
Since there are lots more cisgendered acting parts than transgendered ones, your way of thinking would put the majority of non-cisgendered actors out of work.
Also, people with actual experience in the roles rarely make good actors in those roles. See "The 15:17 to Paris". They cast the actual soldiers as themselves to disastrous effect.
Finally I am more concerned with the everyday person; the school teacher, the mom, the factory worker, being cancelled regardless of their race, gender, etc. I don't really care what the elite do among themselves as that air is too rarefied for me.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re:
I get it, I do, but you have to be aware of your own overgeneralization and bias (I'd go so far to say racism) concerning all white people. There is no such thing as white privilege that applies equally to all 'white' people. Have black people faced systemic discrimination in this country? Of course, only an idiot would deny it. But they are not the only group and I would argue aren't even the largest group, they are just the most easily identifiable. I would argue that the largest group facing systemic discrimination in this country are the poor. But they are a rather diverse group (and mostly 'white', so I guess they don't count).
I support Dr. Martin Luther King's vision of all races being treated "...not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." and I agree that this country has failed. Failed people of color, failed immigrants, failed non-cis persons, and failed the poor and downtrodden most of all.
Blacks are less than 15% of the US population that is similar to the percentage of people in the US living in poverty The vast majority of those living in poverty are not black. They might be per capita but since they are such a small portion of the population in total numbers, not so much.
This doesn't in anyway diminish the severity of suffering that black people have suffered or continue to suffer in our society, especially under our laws and law enforcement personnel. I believe part of the groundswell stems not only from the egregiousness of George Floyd's death and the subsequent recording and broadcast of it, but of people's personal experience with law enforcement, whether they are black, Hispanic, and yes even white. All lives must matter, or none truly do. If that begins with reminding people that Black Lives Matter, so be it.
I would caution you with painting all white people with the same privilege you feel you were denied. To do so would be a shame as it would authenticate those who would claim that the 'Black Lives Matter' movement is anti white.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re:
The question isn't one of tolerating viewpoints, it's about the reaction to them. You seem to be advancing the theory that it's O.K. to inflict actual violence on someone who has a viewpoint that you believe might lead to violence (and before you get pedantic, by actual violence I am including, physical, financial, and psychological) . Since you are anti-anti-trans, I imagine that puts you on the left (or at least not on the right), so I find your stance rather hypocritical. You are aligning yourself with methods of the KKK and those that believed in such viewpoints as non-white Americans weren't property or that only people of the same race and opposite gender should be allowed to be married.
It's not O.K. for someone to get fired, or killed for saying that non-white Americans should be allowed to sit anywhere on the bus, but it is O.K. to do the same for holding an anti-trans viewpoint?
In the end, as I may have previously mentioned, your response is ultimately self defeating. In the midst of the cancel culture there's a climate of fear that leads people to self censor. It is't the big names (such as the signatories) but the everyday person, the mom, the factory worker, the teacher that has the most to fear. Instead of leading to an environment where you can discuss and hopefully convince people that they might be wrong, that their ideas are hurtful and hurting real people, they huddle in groups of people whom they are sure share their views. They resent the mob, and by extension the views they espouse. Tribalism rears it's ugly head and we end up with a president like Donald Trump elected on a platform of being politically incorrect.
There is no nuance, no subtlety, just orthodoxy. Agree with the mob, agree with our definitions, or else. First there was harassment and the mobs went after people identified as harassers (with or without evidence). Now even that isn't enough for the mob. inappropriate humor, is out, micro-aggressions are a thing, claims of cultural appropriation are policed. Actors and actresses are railed against for doing their jobs (for some reason, it's now wrong for a cis actor to play a non-cis role, but it's just fine for a non-cis actor to play a cis role etc.).
This mentality didn't work for the french revolutionaries and in the end I fear will prove just as counter productive in the digital age.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
I expected more of you MIke.
Sadly I can see where people are coming from when they speak of a cancel culture. You wax on about the semantics of the word censorship and speech vs. consequences, but refuse to believe that these consequences can be disproportionate and lead to less speech being generated. Which is what most people think about when they talk about being censored.
Unfortunately I believe these new platforms (twitter, facebook, etc.) have allowed people to indulge in their worse mob mentalities. I fear we have already succumbed to group think at both ends of the political spectrum. If one were to state the simple fact that we humans are a (insert some incontrovertible fact here) I can imagine the masses getting their digital pitchforks and torches out. If people responded to your speech with more speech, I don't think most people would be so upset. I don't even think people would be upset if there were clear bright lines; sexual harassment, racism, religious intolerance, etc. and then the mobs descended. Unfortunately there isn't. If you express an opinion, no matter how banal that isn't in vogue, there is a very real possibility that your life will be threatened, that of your family, that people will call for you to be fired, or in the very least harass your place of employment to the extent where it's easier to simply fire you than put up with the mob, regardless of your offense or their justification. Since you seem to like links, remember your story on the accounting professor who was removed from her teaching role for using a Hitler Downfall parody meme ( https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200108/17310643703/professor-removed-teaching-sharing-downfall-p arody-video.shtml ).
So yes, while there should be consequences for your speech, I believe that they should be proportionate. At the moment the consequences bear little relation to the speech itself and everything on how closely it adheres to the current orthodoxy. The end result being people live in fear and self censor. This is how the cancel culture suppresses speech and diminishes the marketplace of ideas.
Next >>