Letter on Justice and Open Debate

[Stevicus]

I don't see that at all. In my experience, the people most likely to be decried as exemplars of "cancel culture" are categorically not the kinds of people who leave no room for variation or "minor dissent". They are very open to debate, and very open to the wealth of perspectives and views on both sides. The only things that they absolutely do not tolerate are views that are specifically harmful or oppressive, because nobody SHOULD tolerate attitudes that diminish or negate the existence of others.

Can you give an example of cancel culture targeting someone - to a sustained and impactful degree - merely for "variation" or "minor dissent"?

I could, although you might disagree or consider it "terrorism" just for having an opinion. It may not be something you agree with or something you particularly like, but you might be asked to show a bit more support and evidence for the viewpoint that it's harmful or oppressive. Someone might express an opinion which is not violent, nor does it constitute a clear and present danger. Yet there are those who want to connect a rather innocuous yet politically incorrect opinion to some of the most egregious atrocities in history. It's a bit much to swallow. It doesn't sound like very objective or logical reasoning, so I see nothing wrong with pointing that out.

No, it is not. People are still denied platforms for a variety of reasons, and the "free marketplace of ideas" is substantially weighted against voices that don't substantiate - or call into question - existing, dominant power structures. I see calls to keep spaces at debates for fascists, white supremacists and homophobes, but how often do you see people willing to leave the same spaces open for anarchists? Or Marxist-Leninists? Most people don't even entertain the notion of listening to a professed anarchist, while happily supporting and platforming literal Nazis.

There are spaces open for anarchists and/or Marxist-Leninists. They have a presence on the internet just like anyone else might. If they're being denied platforms, then that's just as wrong.

As far as "existing, dominant power structures" are concerned, that seems to be in a state of flux, although the central power at work is the wealthy elite. However, I don't think there are that many fascists, white supremacists, or homophobes among the wealthy elite (although I'm not really sure about that). I doubt there are any anarchists or Marxist-Leninists among them either. But freedom of speech is a political principle which is highly cherished in the American political culture and that of other Western societies. As long as it doesn't create a clear and present danger, then it's pretty much allowed.

Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone has access to or can afford their own platform. However, I don't see that people are necessarily being "silenced" either. The question is not "if" people have the right to speak, but rather, what they choose to do with that right.

False. The debate still goes on. It is a way for people to say "We will not tolerate this particular attitude/form of expression because it is explicitly harmful and/or enabling of harm".

Prove it. Does it create a clear and present danger? If so, how?

Again, I point you to my previous post where I mention J.K Rowling. She chose not to enter her comments into a debate. Her mind WAS already made up. But as soon as she is being called out for her attitude causing harm, suddenly she was everybody ELSE to "slow down" and "debate" her bigotry rather than (rightly, in my opinion) condemning them for it. If they were interested in open debate, they would have engaged in it first.

I don't know if this is so much a "debate" as much as an intentional and provocative misinterpretation of someone's comments and trying to make them appear far worse than they may actually be. It seems the only subject of "debate" is the notion that "J.K. Rowling is the worst person in the world and anyone who doesn't agree is a homophobe, a fascist, and a white supremacist." This is the mentality of "cancel culture." There's no room for "debate" or anything resembling a civil conversation.

False again. It's a reaction AGAINST intolerance.

Just because YOU say it's "intolerance" doesn't mean that it is. Again, you have to show your work, not just make broad declarations that make no logical sense whatsoever.

So should the fraction of people making those comments mean that the actual, demonstrable harm J.K Rowling's words cause should not be called out?

Not if they can't prove any "actual, demonstrable harm." The rules of evidence still apply. If you make an extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary evidence to back it up.

For example, if what you say is true, then anyone who is harmed by her words would be able to take her to court and sue her for damages. Are there any court cases pending against her?

Again, you direct all of this criticism about "intolerance" and "making up your mind" to critics, but not to Rowling herself. It's pure hypocrisy.

I haven't heard Rowling threaten to send anyone home in an ambulance, have you?

Pre-social media. I.E: The time when the majority of people could not easily interact with or oppose the views expressed by people whose thoughts and expressions are often held in higher regard.

And somehow, the people still managed to bring about the Civil Rights movement and the anti-war movement, along with other progressive movements and causes which brought about far-reaching reforms. The "old order" was torn down decades ago. It was somewhat resurrected during the Reagan years, a process which continued under his successors (including Clinton).

The movement wavered, and what ended up happening was that political correctness and identity politics became the new "Separate But Equal," yet nobody really seemed to notice that. They were all too busy getting caught up in greed-driven capitalism and consumerism.

The cause for peace and justice also fell by the wayside, as US militarism increased, as did the militarization of law enforcement - the consequences of which we're seeing today.

Cancel culture isn't mean to communicate or persuade. Often, the targets of such activism are not the kinds who CAN be communicated with or persuaded. It is most often used to reduce the social cache of individuals whose words would otherwise cause harm, and raise a collective voice that brings attention to that person's harmful activities or words.

Cancel culture isn't just directed at the individual(s) being cancelled. It's a public statement to all, essentially calling on others to join in. Anyone who dares to question it or criticize their methods also get called out, which is indicative of an attitude of "those who are not with us are against us."

Did it ever occur to you that there might be those who disagreed with what Rowling said, who might even be on your side and support your cause - yet they disagree with your tactics, methods, and the perceptions you're trying to convey and impose upon others? Do you think that's possible? Or do you believe that your way is the only true and correct way?

That's what I meant by "intolerance." It's not just reacting against intolerance, as you say, since it also demonstrates intolerance towards those who didn't say anything intolerant, nor do they hold intolerant opinions. Yet because they might disagree with the methods you use to react against intolerance, you're as much as lumping them all in together (such as the people who signed the letter that led to this debate).

Considering the decline in the sales of Rowling's books, and numerous articles I've read discussing her views (from both perspectives), I would say it does work.

Perhaps, although considering that this is still relatively recent, it might be too soon to tell the long-term effect. I doubt she's hurting for cash, and she could probably retire right now and never sell another book again and still do alright. I'm not worried about her well-being or that she might be offended or put upon. This isn't really even about her. It's more about the overall tactics of cancel culture and whether it's truly productive and beneficial to society as a whole.

The question is whether the regression is caused by those things in any way, or if it is just a reaction AGAINST the progress being made by groups who have seen their social and cultural monopoly being diminished. To say we are regressing is, to be honest, just plain wrong. We are slowly considering wider voices, re-analyzing our history, creating new spaces for such things as trans rights. We have developed whole linguistic niches to talk about things that, less than a hundred years ago, would never have even been bothered to be thought about. Despite pockets of resistance (albeit, loud and virulent resistance), the overall trend is still progress.

Most of the "resistance" of which you speak had subsided and died down. As I said, there was a bit of a resurgence during the Reagan era (i.e. the "Moral Majority" which was neither). More than 40 years ago, we were already considering wider voice, re-analyzing our history, and even creating new spaces for such things as trans rights. Yes, those things really did exist back in those days, and there were plenty of those who supported the processes and transitions going on throughout our society and in the world at large.

None of this is new.

The question still remains, how far have we come since then? Should we have been further along by now, and if not, why not? The "overall trend" may be progress - if you look at the world in 2020 versus how it was in 1950, but there was a lot that happened in between that needs to be looked at. The tactics have changed, philosophies have changed, politics have changed, and economics have changed.

Er... What?

30-40 years ago, my best friend would have been laughed out of her job for coming out as openly non-binary and changing her legal status. 30-40 years ago, gay marriage was barely a thing. 30-40 years ago statues of slave owners and white supremacists erected specifically to intimidate black communities would have stood unquestioned.

You're just plain wrong.

I don't think so. I think you're trying to paint a picture of a caricature, not how it was in reality.

I'm not sure you understand what cancel culture is, or the intentions of those who use it, enough to make that judgement.

If the intentions are comparable to what people wanted 50 years ago during the Civil Rights movement, then I think I understand it well enough. Their intentions are not at issue. It's their tactics. Cancel culture is a tactic, ostensibly a means for reaching a goal, but you and others seem to believe it's a be-all and end-all.

Also, did you read the article? How do you feel about the notion that freedom of speech needs to be tempered with equality and accountability? Do you agree or disagree?

Maybe freedom of speech needs to be tempered with some common sense and a more rational perspective.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I could, although you might disagree or consider it "terrorism" just for having an opinion.

Why would you think that?

Could you just present an example?

It may not be something you agree with or something you particularly like, but you might be asked to show a bit more support and evidence for the viewpoint that it's harmful or oppressive.

Of course, and many do. People have been very quick to show J.K Rowling studies on how attitudes like hers in various societies have positive correlations with trans suicide rates. J.K Rowling is quick to... not read those.

Someone might express an opinion which is not violent, nor does it constitute a clear and present danger. Yet there are those who want to connect a rather innocuous yet politically incorrect opinion to some of the most egregious atrocities in history. It's a bit much to swallow. It doesn't sound like very objective or logical reasoning, so I see nothing wrong with pointing that out.

Can you give an example of somebody presenting an opinion that is not violent or present a clear and present danger that was subsequently cancelled for it?

Also, it's worth noting that what YOU determine to be "innocuous yet politically correct" may actually be far more actively harmful than you realise. For an example of this, during the civil rights years in America, a lot of anti-black-rights protesters chose not to march under the banner of anti-black phrases or ideologies, but instead under the phrase "whites have rights too". From a certain perspective, this phrase could be considered innocuous and non-violent, but when it was used in the context of the civil rights era, what is the implication? It explicitly implies that an increase in the rights of black people was somehow an infringement of the rights of white people. It was a phrase used to tie black rights with anti-white racism or victimhood in order to create a false narrative whereby increasing the rights of black people was in opposition to the wellbeing of white people. That idea is absolutely not innocuous.

More recently, you see this in such phrases like "all lives matter". Perhaps a more pervasive attitude, that I think you would agree is absolutely no innocuous, is "religious liberties". This phrase is bandied about a lot when any question of rolling back religious privilege or secularisation come up. Again, on it's own, it could be considered innocuous, but in the context of the debate it doesn't mean "religious people have the right to practice their belief". It means "secularising society and allowing space for greater diversity of beliefs (or lack thereof) is a direct infringement of the right to practice our specific belief". That is not innocuous.

And, if you know your history, it's the proliferation of seemingly "innocuous" ideas such as this that can - and have - contributed to the rise of some of the most reprehensible ideas in history.

There are spaces open for anarchists and/or Marxist-Leninists. They have a presence on the internet just like anyone else might.

Sure, the internet has space for everybody, but how many mainstream outlets take them seriously or will give them the time of day? And this does have a significant impact on how people as a whole perceive those views. I've seen a number of sponsored debates (even online ones) where the range of views go from outright fascist to neo-liberal capitalist, and this is treated as if it is the broadest spectrum available. This isn't an attitude or behaviour that is particular to just one side of the spectrum in America, either.

As far as "existing, dominant power structures" are concerned, that seems to be in a state of flux, although the central power at work is the wealthy elite. However, I don't think there are that many fascists, white supremacists, or homophobes among the wealthy elite (although I'm not really sure about that).

I'm not sure the actual number matters. What matters is the degree of influence they have.

And, heck, they don't even need to be outright fascists, white supremacists or homophobes. They can simply be people who stand to profit from empowering those particular views over views which favour socialism, Marxism or outright anarchy, because a multi-millionaire's media monopoly isn't really threatened by fascists taking over (at least, not most of the time). They're more likely to be threatened by the political ideologies which question whether or not they deserve their monopoly, or call for their wealth to be redistributed. This is why people like Rupert Murdoch would sooner platform Nazis than Communists, and why they have a vested interested in presenting narratives that diminish movements like black lives matter and "cancel culture", because these kinds of movements challenge the existing social order which they directly benefit from.

One media magnate who decides that BLM or Marxists (or even movements for the rights of homosexuals or trans people) threatens the social order that put them on top can have a significant impact on the shape of the debate and who is being given a say. And it stands to reason that vast majority of extremely wealthy people will favour the power structures that allowed them to become extremely wealthy. They don't have to be actively Nazis, they just have to have an interested in maintaining the status quo (which they almost invariably do) and the means by which to greatly influence the social discourse in their favour (which they absolutely all do).

I doubt there are any anarchists or Marxist-Leninists among them either. But freedom of speech is a political principle which is highly cherished in the American political culture and that of other Western societies. As long as it doesn't create a clear and present danger, then it's pretty much allowed.

Except it isn't. Freedom of speech is still diminished for many people, such as convicts, illegal immigrants, and almost all of those progressive political ideologies I mentioned earlier. I've met people who could be considered prominent proponents of cancel culture - some Antifa members - who probably believe far more in the values of freedom of speech than the average American, and want an increase in the overall number and quality of voices engaged in the discussion. But, again, these people are not platformed. They are not welcomed into the debate, by and large, and their attitudes are treated as absurd.

Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone has access to or can afford their own platform. However, I don't see that people are necessarily being "silenced" either. The question is not "if" people have the right to speak, but rather, what they choose to do with that right.

Which is exactly why people should be held to account when they use their freedom of speech to promote demonstrably and actively harmful ideologies.

Prove it. Does it create a clear and present danger? If so, how?

Misgendering, dead-naming and other forms of discrimination have a direct impact on likelihood of trans people to commit suicide, and access to transitional and gender-affirming medical care had the reverse effect:
Suicide Thoughts and Attempts Among Transgender Adults - Williams Institute
https://www.suicideinfo.ca/wp-conte...ic-review-of-prevalence-and-correlates_oa.pdf
An Interdisciplinary Model for Meeting the Mental Health Needs of Transgender Adolescents and Young Adults: The Mount Sinai Adolescent Health Center Approach - ScienceDirect

I don't know if this is so much a "debate" as much as an intentional and provocative misinterpretation of someone's comments and trying to make them appear far worse than they may actually be. It seems the only subject of "debate" is the notion that "J.K. Rowling is the worst person in the world and anyone who doesn't agree is a homophobe, a fascist, and a white supremacist."

Do you not realise the incredible irony of these two sentences?

This is the mentality of "cancel culture." There's no room for "debate" or anything resembling a civil conversation.

Again, see above. You're guilty of the very thing you're accusing "cancel culture" of. I've demonstrated how Rowling's statements directly contribute to the culture that significantly negatively impacts the well-being of trans people.

And, as I wrote before, ROWLING ISN'T INTERESTED IN CIVIL DEBATE. She could enter into a civil debate any time, but instead chooses to express her views in very aggressive, narrow-minded ways to her 14.5 million Twitter followers. If she wants civil conversation, she can make that choice. She chooses not to. So why is your ire reserved entirely for the people who call her out for her prejudicial remarks?

This is pure hypocrisy. If you TRULY want a "civil discourse", you would condemn Rowling too. But you aren't, and instead you legitimise her views by saying they're "not harmful". You reserve that moniker for the people who oppose her views and call her out for her prejudice, and believe she should not be platformed. It's simply a case of you choosing one perspective arbitrarily and determining that because she was the one who spoke first, her rights beat everyone elses.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just because YOU say it's "intolerance" doesn't mean that it is.

No, the fact that it is intolerant speaks for itself.

Again, you have to show your work, not just make broad declarations that make no logical sense whatsoever.

See above. J.K Rowling does not believe in transgenderism as a category, opposes trans rights, dismisses trans voices, and misgenders trans people.

Not if they can't prove any "actual, demonstrable harm." The rules of evidence still apply. If you make an extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary evidence to back it up.

See above studies.

For example, if what you say is true, then anyone who is harmed by her words would be able to take her to court and sue her for damages. Are there any court cases pending against her?

This is just a nonsense argument on multiple levels. I could go on Twitter right now and promote the fascist conspiracy theory of white genocide - something that is absolutely and demonstrably harmful to black communities and actually promotes REAL genocide - and not be taken to court for it.

I haven't heard Rowling threaten to send anyone home in an ambulance, have you?

Is that the bar you set? Something isn't harmful or hurtful unless it's a direct threat of physical violence?

How we choose to express our views HAS CONSEQUENCES. Sometimes, those consequences are directly negative. Sometimes, they are extremely negative. A white supremacist doesn't have to literally threaten Jewish communities with actual, physical violence in order for their view that "Jews are controlling the media" to be considered harmful.

This isn't difficult to understand.

And somehow, the people still managed to bring about the Civil Rights movement and the anti-war movement, along with other progressive movements and causes which brought about far-reaching reforms. The "old order" was torn down decades ago. It was somewhat resurrected during the Reagan years, a process which continued under his successors (including Clinton).

And yet the effects of it still linger, and any movements towards addressing that are often rebuked. Black inequality didn't cease to exist in 1965 (or when Reagan left office). Black people are still significantly disadvantaged, because they are put at the heel of the system and a populace that says "as long as they are effectively equal on paper, that's all we need to worry about!"

The movement wavered, and what ended up happening was that political correctness and identity politics became the new "Separate But Equal," yet nobody really seemed to notice that.

Because it's not true. Political correctness is nothing but a rightwing boogeyman, and identity politics is just... ALL politics. They aren't the ghastly spectres somehow conjured up by people who decided "equality wasn't enough!".

The cause for peace and justice also fell by the wayside, as US militarism increased, as did the militarization of law enforcement - the consequences of which we're seeing today.

Agreed, but which groups do you think are more negatively impacted by that militarization of the police? Or do you believe every group is effected by it equally? Because I never heard of a wealthy, white, heterosexual people being afraid to walk the streets in America for fear of being stop and searched by gun-wielding police. And yet the more descriptors you change in that sentence, the more that experience becomes the reverse. That doesn't mean that the militarization of the police is a strictly "minority" problem, but if you acknowledge that it IS a problem, you have to understand how its impacts can be significantly worse for minority communities.

Cancel culture isn't just directed at the individual(s) being cancelled. It's a public statement to all, essentially calling on others to join in. Anyone who dares to question it or criticize their methods also get called out, which is indicative of an attitude of "those who are not with us are against us."

Again, we're talking about attitudes which are actively harmful. When it comes to the rights of others, and those who wish to diminish those rights, it literally IS "those who are not with us are against us". If you empower, platform or enable voices which diminish the rights of, say, the homosexual community, you shouldn't be surprised to see homosexuals turn against you. Because you are literally contributing to the advancement of voices that ACTIVELY SEEK THEIR NON-EXISTENCE.

In situations like this, it's always worth considering what both sides want and what the ultimate consequences of each view are. In this case, the people being cancelled advocate for - at the very least - a world in which the rights of certain groups don't exist, and - at worst - the non-existence of certain groups. That is the natural, in-built consequences of diminishing rights. What the advocates of cancel culture want - at the very least - are for people who want their rights diminished to stop advancing and spreading their ideas unchallenged, and - at worst - for people with those views to become unwelcome on various platforms. That's it. The dichotomy is literally "the existence of a minority group" vs "the right to say and do actively harmful things".

Did it ever occur to you that there might be those who disagreed with what Rowling said, who might even be on your side and support your cause - yet they disagree with your tactics, methods, and the perceptions you're trying to convey and impose upon others? Do you think that's possible? Or do you believe that your way is the only true and correct way?

Of course there are. And I debate those people regularly. I don't think that there is ever only "one true and correct way", but I do believe that there is only one appropriate response to intolerance: rejection of it.

That's what I meant by "intolerance." It's not just reacting against intolerance, as you say, since it also demonstrates intolerance towards those who didn't say anything intolerant, nor do they hold intolerant opinions. Yet because they might disagree with the methods you use to react against intolerance, you're as much as lumping them all in together (such as the people who signed the letter that led to this debate).

Except I don't. What makes you think I would? What intolerance do you think I'm showing to people who are "on my side" but don't agree with "cancel culture" as a tactic? What intolerance have I shown you? I'm considering your view, reading your words, and responding point by point. At what point in our debate have I displayed intolerance towards you?

Perhaps, although considering that this is still relatively recent, it might be too soon to tell the long-term effect. I doubt she's hurting for cash, and she could probably retire right now and never sell another book again and still do alright. I'm not worried about her well-being or that she might be offended or put upon. This isn't really even about her. It's more about the overall tactics of cancel culture and whether it's truly productive and beneficial to society as a whole.

Like you said, time will tell.

Most of the "resistance" of which you speak had subsided and died down.

Have you not been paying attention to the last few years? Institutional racism has not disappeared, and now that it is finally on the table there is a HUGE reaction against progress on the issue. I believe this resistance will, as you say, die down, but it is still currently ongoing at the very least.

As I said, there was a bit of a resurgence during the Reagan era (i.e. the "Moral Majority" which was neither). More than 40 years ago, we were already considering wider voice, re-analyzing our history, and even creating new spaces for such things as trans rights. Yes, those things really did exist back in those days, and there were plenty of those who supported the processes and transitions going on throughout our society and in the world at large.

"Existing" is no the same as being understood or accepted by wider society. There "existed" advocates for black rights during the worst years of the slave trade, but that doesn't mean that things for black people in that particular time period were anything but awful, or diminish the systemic oppression they lived under.

You simply cannot look at the world now and tell me we are less tolerant and progressive society than we were, even in the nineties.

The question still remains, how far have we come since then? Should we have been further along by now, and if not, why not? The "overall trend" may be progress - if you look at the world in 2020 versus how it was in 1950, but there was a lot that happened in between that needs to be looked at. The tactics have changed, philosophies have changed, politics have changed, and economics have changed.

This is all true, and merits further consideration.

I don't think so. I think you're trying to paint a picture of a caricature, not how it was in reality.

So you seriously think that things were better for black people, gay people, disabled people and trans people 30-40 years ago than today?

If the intentions are comparable to what people wanted 50 years ago during the Civil Rights movement, then I think I understand it well enough. Their intentions are not at issue. It's their tactics. Cancel culture is a tactic, ostensibly a means for reaching a goal, but you and others seem to believe it's a be-all and end-all.

This is kind of just meaningless babble. Why does "the tactic" matter so much to you when you have yet to demonstrate any actual harm of the tactic, and the tactic is well withing the rights of people?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Maybe freedom of speech needs to be tempered with some common sense and a more rational perspective.

That's not an answer to my question. It's just begging the question.

WHOSE common sense? WHOSE rational perspective? To you or I, we may see protesters yelling in the street outside the office of an academic because of something the academic said on Twitter, and we might - with our perfectly rational perspectives - determine that what those protesters are doing is excessive and/or irrational. But the protester could be a trans person, and the comment made on Twitter could very well have suggested that trans people should be denied access to facilities which match their gender identity and medical care for transitioning, and these suggestions may have been re-tweeted by a prominent politician who is currently in the process of drafting legislation concerning trans rights. To that protester, these things are all inextricably tied to their very existence as a category of person. It isn't just a matter of what somebody said on Twitter. It is an explicit denial of that person's existence of a protected class, and when that happens, what choice do you have? Do you sit at home and hope that the "sensible rational debate" that is being had primarily by people who are not trans and do not share your personal connection to this issue wins out in your favour somehow, or do you go out and fight for your very life with everything that you have?

I would say, categorically, the the former option is fundamentally irrational. Both at a personal level, and from simply looking at history. While the actual act of getting involved with shutting down voices who call into question your very existence and the rights that keep you protected is nothing but rational, common sense.

Do you believe there is any room in society at all for accountability? Do you understand that freedom of speech without true equality inevitable results in a discriminatory society? Do you understand the dangers of impunity?

 

[Stevicus]

Why would you think that?

Could you just present an example?

We've already brought up some examples in this thread.

Of course, and many do. People have been very quick to show J.K Rowling studies on how attitudes like hers in various societies have positive correlations with trans suicide rates. J.K Rowling is quick to... not read those.

I understand, although some people may not always connect suicide rates with whatever the cause might be. Such as disgruntled employees who are fired and come back and shoot their former boss and co-workers. Who is to blame when something like that happens? The person pulling the trigger or the boss who fired him?


In other words, cause and effect. How far do we want to go with that?

Can you give an example of somebody presenting an opinion that is not violent or present a clear and present danger that was subsequently cancelled for it?

Let's use your examples, since you've provided some already:

Also, it's worth noting that what YOU determine to be "innocuous yet politically correct" may actually be far more actively harmful than you realise.

Maybe, although a consistent standard should be encouraged. Otherwise, it can be viewed as just as hypocritical as you're accusing me of being.

For an example of this, during the civil rights years in America, a lot of anti-black-rights protesters chose not to march under the banner of anti-black phrases or ideologies, but instead under the phrase "whites have rights too". From a certain perspective, this phrase could be considered innocuous and non-violent, but when it was used in the context of the civil rights era, what is the implication? It explicitly implies that an increase in the rights of black people was somehow an infringement of the rights of white people. It was a phrase used to tie black rights with anti-white racism or victimhood in order to create a false narrative whereby increasing the rights of black people was in opposition to the wellbeing of white people. That idea is absolutely not innocuous.

I can understand what you're saying, and I mostly agree, however, I don't see that there's much reason to get stuck on a particular slogan or phrase. This is political rhetoric at work, and both sides use it as a tool to persuade others. It still must be addressed and talked about, but to condemn someone for using that phrase without any other context seems just as unreasonable. Sometimes, you just have to deal with what people say at face value without reading too much into it.


It's also a question of ideological consistency. If one is pursuing a goal of civil rights and equality for all, it’s incongruous, counterintuitive, and somewhat hypocritical to continue lumping people into groups of “white,” “black,” etc. while saying that people should be judged as individuals, not for their race, nationality, gender, color, orientation, etc. That is the goal here, and to deviate from that goal only causes further complications and problems.


That’s why we’re still here in 2020 and still having these problems, some 50-60 years later. People lost sight of the goal and preferred to get bogged down in rhetoric rather than deal with real, physical problems.

More recently, you see this in such phrases like "all lives matter". Perhaps a more pervasive attitude, that I think you would agree is absolutely no innocuous, is "religious liberties". This phrase is bandied about a lot when any question of rolling back religious privilege or secularisation come up. Again, on it's own, it could be considered innocuous, but in the context of the debate it doesn't mean "religious people have the right to practice their belief". It means "secularising society and allowing space for greater diversity of beliefs (or lack thereof) is a direct infringement of the right to practice our specific belief". That is not innocuous.


And, if you know your history, it's the proliferation of seemingly "innocuous" ideas such as this that can - and have - contributed to the rise of some of the most reprehensible ideas in history.

I still think that you’re jumping to conclusions here. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with saying “all lives matter,” even if some of the people saying that might have an ulterior motive or some thinly-veiled agenda. The same basic concept is enshrined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, so ideologically and philosophically, it’s difficult to find moral fault in such a principle, in and of itself.


But I get what you’re saying. It’s clearly in response to the phrase “Black Lives Matter” which came about more recently and it’s logically and historically connected to various forerunners within the Civil Rights Movement. So, the prevailing view is that, to respond to the phrase “Black Lives Matter” with the phrase “All lives matter” is viewed as a slap in the face of the Civil Rights Movement and appears to have an ulterior motive and a malignant agenda behind it.


However, if you really take a step back and look at what’s going on, what seems evident is that people are fixated and bickering over semantics and slogans, while losing sight of the actual issues they’re supposedly fighting for.


The issue is systemic racism, along with racist cops who have been given license to do whatever they want by a society gripped by fear – and that fear is what is truly at issue here. That’s what needs to be addressed, not endless bickering over semantics and words and calling people out just because of something they said (and probably based in fear).


I do know my history, and racism is an idea related to nationalism and tribalism. The concept was rather contrived, and in the history of the U.S., the tone was largely set after Bacon’s Rebellion in 17th century Colonial America. That was when slavery became race-based and generational, whereas prior to that it was more a matter of temporary indentured servitude. It seemed as if the upper class whites were fearful of lower class whites who appeared to get too chummy with the blacks and Native Americans. They didn’t like the idea of blacks and whites banding together and fighting side by side against the aristocratic colonial government they were living under.


The whole thing was really just a giant money-making scheme. Racism was invented as a kind of justification after the fact. Later on, ideas such as Manifest Destiny suggested that it was “God’s will” and part of some kind of “natural order.”


Religious liberties were different, although they were invoked both by those who supported racism and by those who strongly opposed racism (such as John Brown). Religious factions fell into different camps, although I will acknowledge the religious influences of some of America’s staunchest Abolitionists and other advocates for Civil Rights.

Sure, the internet has space for everybody, but how many mainstream outlets take them seriously or will give them the time of day? And this does have a significant impact on how people as a whole perceive those views. I've seen a number of sponsored debates (even online ones) where the range of views go from outright fascist to neo-liberal capitalist, and this is treated as if it is the broadest spectrum available. This isn't an attitude or behaviour that is particular to just one side of the spectrum in America, either.

Actually, I recall that they were given more mainstream attention in the 70s and early 80s (which is part of the reason I believe those decades were a bit more tolerant than what we have now, even despite your view that it’s “hypocritical” to believe that).

 

[Stevicus]

I'm not sure the actual number matters. What matters is the degree of influence they have.


And, heck, they don't even need to be outright fascists, white supremacists or homophobes. They can simply be people who stand to profit from empowering those particular views over views which favour socialism, Marxism or outright anarchy, because a multi-millionaire's media monopoly isn't really threatened by fascists taking over (at least, not most of the time). They're more likely to be threatened by the political ideologies which question whether or not they deserve their monopoly, or call for their wealth to be redistributed. This is why people like Rupert Murdoch would sooner platform Nazis than Communists, and why they have a vested interested in presenting narratives that diminish movements like black lives matter and "cancel culture", because these kinds of movements challenge the existing social order which they directly benefit from.


One media magnate who decides that BLM or Marxists (or even movements for the rights of homosexuals or trans people) threatens the social order that put them on top can have a significant impact on the shape of the debate and who is being given a say. And it stands to reason that vast majority of extremely wealthy people will favour the power structures that allowed them to become extremely wealthy. They don't have to be actively Nazis, they just have to have an interested in maintaining the status quo (which they almost invariably do) and the means by which to greatly influence the social discourse in their favour (which they absolutely all do).

I can’t really say much about Rupert Murdoch, although I’ve seen quite a wide range of opinions on the matter. However, I do see that there is a great deal of support for BLM among the major media outlets and throughout Corporate America. Even Walmart has weighed in. Quaker Oats has discontinued its Aunt Jemima brand. Some might see it as disingenuous – a kind of shameless corporate pandering for the sake of political expediency and profit. A kind of “tokenism” of ideas, but I guess it’s better than what some others might be saying (such as the morning commentator on the local Fox News radio affiliate).


But I think it’s important to make note of that. The corporate media are driving agenda and controlling the narrative. Fox News may stand out as a more egregious offender, but at the end of the day, they’re all on the same side of the fence.

Except it isn't. Freedom of speech is still diminished for many people, such as convicts, illegal immigrants, and almost all of those progressive political ideologies I mentioned earlier. I've met people who could be considered prominent proponents of cancel culture - some Antifa members - who probably believe far more in the values of freedom of speech than the average American, and want an increase in the overall number and quality of voices engaged in the discussion. But, again, these people are not platformed. They are not welcomed into the debate, by and large, and their attitudes are treated as absurd.

Yeah, I get that. I myself know that many of the ideas I have advocated are not very popular, not likely to be platformed, and largely treated as absurd. So, I’m not unsympathetic to that.


But cancel culture won’t get them any closer to getting a platform. Unleashing a Twitter storm of outrage might feel like a temporary victory (and they might even get Twitter or other social media outlets to ban posts/posters), but it doesn’t appear to have any real staying power. That’s why they may find resistance at finding a mainstream platform. It’s relatively easy to get people to go against somebody, but to find those who are for somebody (or something) is much more difficult.

Which is exactly why people should be held to account when they use their freedom of speech to promote demonstrably and actively harmful ideologies.

And that goes for everybody…

Misgendering, dead-naming and other forms of discrimination have a direct impact on likelihood of trans people to commit suicide, and access to transitional and gender-affirming medical care had the reverse effect:

Suicide Thoughts and Attempts Among Transgender Adults - Williams Institute

https://www.suicideinfo.ca/wp-conte...ic-review-of-prevalence-and-correlates_oa.pdf

An Interdisciplinary Model for Meeting the Mental Health Needs of Transgender Adolescents and Young Adults: The Mount Sinai Adolescent Health Center Approach - ScienceDirect

I will take a look at these links. The discrimination you’re referring to has come from all quarters and has gone on for generations. I accept that this is true over the long term, but you yourself have insisted that it’s far more tolerant than it was in the past, so it’s a matter of demonstrating that this specific statement from this one person has directly led to actual harm.

Do you not realise the incredible irony of these two sentences?


Again, see above. You're guilty of the very thing you're accusing "cancel culture" of. I've demonstrated how Rowling's statements directly contribute to the culture that significantly negatively impacts the well-being of trans people.


And, as I wrote before, ROWLING ISN'T INTERESTED IN CIVIL DEBATE. She could enter into a civil debate any time, but instead chooses to express her views in very aggressive, narrow-minded ways to her 14.5 million Twitter followers. If she wants civil conversation, she can make that choice. She chooses not to. So why is your ire reserved entirely for the people who call her out for her prejudicial remarks?

Well, I’ll refer you again to the letter in the OP. As I said, this isn’t about Rowling but about a letter on justice and open debate. Even if Rowling may not be interested (and I’m not so sure about that), there are others who are. Did you even read the letter? It’s not just about Rowling.


And with all due respect, I don’t believe I’ve referred to any of the advocates of cancel culture in the worst possible terms – to the point of calling them “deplorables” and insinuating that they’re politically malignant (people in this thread have brought up Nazis and the KKK), as many seem to be doing regarding Rowling and others who have somehow earned their wrath. There are those on the right-wing who might be calling cancel culture socialists, communists, Bolsheviks, etc., but I’m not doing that. At worst, I’m just saying that they’re misguided and wasting their energy and political capital on those who would otherwise be friendly to liberal and progressive causes.


I think this is extremely unwise, especially at this time when liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party should be striving for unity, not divisiveness.

This is pure hypocrisy. If you TRULY want a "civil discourse", you would condemn Rowling too. But you aren't, and instead you legitimise her views by saying they're "not harmful". You reserve that moniker for the people who oppose her views and call her out for her prejudice, and believe she should not be platformed. It's simply a case of you choosing one perspective arbitrarily and determining that because she was the one who spoke first, her rights beat everyone elses.

What “moniker” are you referring to? I didn’t write the letter in the OP. I saw the letter and noted some of the signatories, including Noam Chomsky for whom I have a great deal of respect. I think the writers of that letter have a point, and that’s why I introduced this topic in the first place.


To be honest, I have no idea what potential evil lurks in the heart of J.K. Rowling. I never had much interest in any of her works, although I did note with passing interest a while back when I heard of some right-wing Christian groups who didn’t like some of the subject matter about magic and the occult. The right-wing has their own version of “cancel culture,” although they may not actually call it that. (It reminds me of a time when the Southern Baptists wanted to organize a boycott of Disney, but that fizzled out rather quickly.)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We've already brought up some examples in this thread.

Could you at least point me towards one?

I understand, although some people may not always connect suicide rates with whatever the cause might be. Such as disgruntled employees who are fired and come back and shoot their former boss and co-workers. Who is to blame when something like that happens? The person pulling the trigger or the boss who fired him?


In other words, cause and effect. How far do we want to go with that?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that trans suicide rates could be the fault of trans people?

Seriously, what the hell were you thinking when you brought up this comparison?

Maybe, although a consistent standard should be encouraged. Otherwise, it can be viewed as just as hypocritical as you're accusing me of being.

Okay, so what determines that standard and how do we apply it?

I can understand what you're saying, and I mostly agree, however, I don't see that there's much reason to get stuck on a particular slogan or phrase. This is political rhetoric at work, and both sides use it as a tool to persuade others. It still must be addressed and talked about, but to condemn someone for using that phrase without any other context seems just as unreasonable. Sometimes, you just have to deal with what people say at face value without reading too much into it.

Except you don't have to "read too much into it". When a white supremacist says "I want Jews to not control the global media", they are no saying "All I want is for media to have an evenly distributed power structure where no one group holds a non-representative share of the influence". They are saying "Jews are in charge, we should blame them for societal ills, we should strip them of power and persecute them".

This is not "reading into" something. This is their actual intent, cloaked behind seemingly "innocuous" language. The idea that we should take statements like these "at face value" is to explicitly deny intent, meaning, rhetoric and the very application of reason you are attempting to espouse. To simply pretend that the meaning of words and phrases, even in very specific context, should be simply accepted at face value is utterly irrational.

It's also a question of ideological consistency. If one is pursuing a goal of civil rights and equality for all, it’s incongruous, counterintuitive, and somewhat hypocritical to continue lumping people into groups of “white,” “black,” etc. while saying that people should be judged as individuals, not for their race, nationality, gender, color, orientation, etc. That is the goal here, and to deviate from that goal only causes further complications and problems.

This is false. In fact, not only would I say it is false, but the exact opposite is actually true.

If you live in a society that is not treating certain groups equally, YOU HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE GROUPS IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THAT IMBALANCE. If you refuse to "see" race, you will consequently miss out on seeing all of the racial discrimination - both conscious and unconscious - that occurs. It is a pretence, set up largely by people who have never had to feel that they fit a category, in order to deny the experiences of those who have been branded with those categories from birth. It may seem enlightened to think that by not analyzing society along racial, ethnic, cultural, sexual or other lines you are somehow being enlightened, but all you're really doing is making a headspace whereby you can freely ignore any effect society may have on those groups.

Acknowledging the existence of racial groups, etc., is ESSENTIAL to understanding how fair and equal society is being, and denying the existence of those groups only empowers inequality and allows it to continue, unchallenged.

That’s why we’re still here in 2020 and still having these problems, some 50-60 years later. People lost sight of the goal and preferred to get bogged down in rhetoric rather than deal with real, physical problems.

We are dealing with real, physical problems. You think trans suicide rates aren't real? You think discrimination against racial, sexual or ethnic groups isn't real?

These are still VERY real issues, and in order to deal with them, we HAVE to acknowledge them.

I still think that you’re jumping to conclusions here. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with saying “all lives matter,” even if some of the people saying that might have an ulterior motive or some thinly-veiled agenda. The same basic concept is enshrined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, so ideologically and philosophically, it’s difficult to find moral fault in such a principle, in and of itself.

Once again, this is your "surface level reading" argument kicking in. If you cannot see how responding to the statement "black lives matter" with "all lives matter" is a deliberate attempt to diminish or downplay the multitude of ways in which society devalues black lives, then I really don't know what to say to you.

If you are not capable of reading past the surface level, to analyze intent or effect, then what are you doing on the political debate forum?

But I get what you’re saying. It’s clearly in response to the phrase “Black Lives Matter” which came about more recently and it’s logically and historically connected to various forerunners within the Civil Rights Movement. So, the prevailing view is that, to respond to the phrase “Black Lives Matter” with the phrase “All lives matter” is viewed as a slap in the face of the Civil Rights Movement and appears to have an ulterior motive and a malignant agenda behind it.

Because it does.

However, if you really take a step back and look at what’s going on, what seems evident is that people are fixated and bickering over semantics and slogans, while losing sight of the actual issues they’re supposedly fighting for.

False. The people responding with "all lives matter" are the ones trying to distract. The statement "black lives matter" is implicit declaration that black people SHOULD MATTER and, again by implication, that the manner in which the system currently works, they are being treated as if they don't. THAT is the issue, and it's an issue that the "all lives matter" people are explicitly (yes, EXPLICITLY) attempting to downplay or ignore.

One side is attempting to address actual issues, the other side is using semantics and rhetoric to avoid acknowledging those issues.

The issue is systemic racism, along with racist cops who have been given license to do whatever they want by a society gripped by fear – and that fear is what is truly at issue here. That’s what needs to be addressed, not endless bickering over semantics and words and calling people out just because of something they said (and probably based in fear).

Black lives matter are already dealing with that. What I'm talking about is the broader discussion and debate, and how "all lives matter" can be (and is) used to bring discussions to a dead stop.

I do know my history, and racism is an idea related to nationalism and tribalism. The concept was rather contrived, and in the history of the U.S., the tone was largely set after Bacon’s Rebellion in 17th century Colonial America. That was when slavery became race-based and generational, whereas prior to that it was more a matter of temporary indentured servitude. It seemed as if the upper class whites were fearful of lower class whites who appeared to get too chummy with the blacks and Native Americans. They didn’t like the idea of blacks and whites banding together and fighting side by side against the aristocratic colonial government they were living under.

The whole thing was really just a giant money-making scheme. Racism was invented as a kind of justification after the fact. Later on, ideas such as Manifest Destiny suggested that it was “God’s will” and part of some kind of “natural order.”

Religious liberties were different, although they were invoked both by those who supported racism and by those who strongly opposed racism (such as John Brown). Religious factions fell into different camps, although I will acknowledge the religious influences of some of America’s staunchest Abolitionists and other advocates for Civil Rights.

While this is all cool, it does nothing to acknowledge the point I was making about how seemingly "innocuous" phrases and language can lead directly to the rise of extremely harmful movements and political upheavals.

Actually, I recall that they were given more mainstream attention in the 70s and early 80s (which is part of the reason I believe those decades were a bit more tolerant than what we have now, even despite your view that it’s “hypocritical” to believe that).

And what happened to those movements with the attention they were getting?

 

[Secret Chief]

There's a reason hate speech is protected as free speech.

Hate speech is not protected in the UK, it is outlawed.

"A number of different UK laws outlaw hate speech. Among them is Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA), which makes it an offence for a person to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress”. This law has been revised over the years to include language that is deemed to incite “racial and religious hatred”, as well as “hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation” and language that “encourages terrorism”."

- Hate speech vs. free speech: the UK laws

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I can’t really say much about Rupert Murdoch, although I’ve seen quite a wide range of opinions on the matter. However, I do see that there is a great deal of support for BLM among the major media outlets and throughout Corporate America. Even Walmart has weighed in. Quaker Oats has discontinued its Aunt Jemima brand. Some might see it as disingenuous – a kind of shameless corporate pandering for the sake of political expediency and profit. A kind of “tokenism” of ideas, but I guess it’s better than what some others might be saying (such as the morning commentator on the local Fox News radio affiliate).

But I think it’s important to make note of that. The corporate media are driving agenda and controlling the narrative. Fox News may stand out as a more egregious offender, but at the end of the day, they’re all on the same side of the fence.

Corporations and media have always had a history of piggybacking on cultural shifts and large-scale shifts of public opinion. There comes a point at which public outcry and emotion is such that they can't really hope to survive if they don't follow where those opinions lead. In the case of BLM, the first BLM movement was treated with a large degree of hostility, but this second movement (buoyed largely by the very public and very unambiguous murder at its core) got such a response from the public that the cost of painting the movement negatively was outweighed by possible net gains if they engaged in token support, as you rightly put it.

Though, we are starting to see some of that support roll away. More and more media outlets and political pundits focus the ongoing riots as emblematic of the movement going "too far". I've seen writers, even staunchly liberal ones, diminish the freedom of speech of rioters while protecting the police for actual, physical violence. The narrative has now become "BLM is a good cause, but a lot of members of BLM are violent criminals". If they cannot completely destroy the impact of the message, they are trying really hard to diminish the ability for people to take proponents of the movement seriously.

Yeah, I get that. I myself know that many of the ideas I have advocated are not very popular, not likely to be platformed, and largely treated as absurd. So, I’m not unsympathetic to that.

In the UK, we still have trouble with anybody who wants to abolish the monarchy. I had a discussion about this with a very, VERY intelligent friend of mine recently, who just thought the royal family were completely harmless, regardless of all the things I said. And I don't think I know a single mainstream newspaper - even very, very left-leaning ones - who are all that comfortable with outright saying "Hey, maybe hereditary power structures shouldn't exist?". Often times, a society doesn't even have to deplore an idea - just not allow space for, or even lend any notion to the possibility of, an idea for it to never even enter the public sphere.

But cancel culture won’t get them any closer to getting a platform.

Cancel culture is the platform. Social media like Twitter, while far from ideal, are still platforms by which disenfranchized groups can stand up and declare intent.

Unleashing a Twitter storm of outrage might feel like a temporary victory (and they might even get Twitter or other social media outlets to ban posts/posters), but it doesn’t appear to have any real staying power. That’s why they may find resistance at finding a mainstream platform. It’s relatively easy to get people to go against somebody, but to find those who are for somebody (or something) is much more difficult.

I understand that it can sometimes be a double-edged sword. Right now, the discussion in the UK papers is not about what harm J.K Rowling's words can do, or about the impact of such language on trans groups, but on "whether or not Rowling has a right to say them", as if the people cancelling her have some sort of undemocratic monopoly on power. There's been a lot of fallout, but the people most negatively affected by all of this have been smaller authors who have "stood up" for Rowling and subsequently been dropped by their publishers (which I don't exactly advocate but, again, I think standing up for intolerance is not a great look, publicly), and the millions of Rowling's fans who have been deeply hurt by her words. Rowling will probably get through this, just with a significantly smaller (say, just several handfuls of millions rather than several handfuls more) fanbase. The question most people on the cancelling side are asking - from my experience - doesn't seem to be "When will J.K Rowling's career collapse so that we can dance of its grave", but "I hope J.K Rowling changes her mind".

And that goes for everybody…

Absolutely.

I will take a look at these links. The discrimination you’re referring to has come from all quarters and has gone on for generations. I accept that this is true over the long term, but you yourself have insisted that it’s far more tolerant than it was in the past, so it’s a matter of demonstrating that this specific statement from this one person has directly led to actual harm.

Again, you're oversimplifying.

Something isn't wrong just because it DOES lead to harm (although, words absolutely do, almost always, lead to harm). I could threaten your family with no actual intent to carry out my threat, but I can still be called out for it - and should. You can't just say "until you demonstrate that somebody actually killed themselves because Rowling said that, her words are not harmful". Her words are DEMONSTRABLY harmful, regardless of whether or not anybody actually killed themselves just because she said them. Just as killing for the extermination of Jewish people is DEMONSTRABLY harmful even if nobody takes it upon themselves to personally start construction of a deathcamp.

Because what the words do is display INTENT. To say "We should kill Jewish people" has the harmful intent of making Jewish people fearful, marginalized and unwelcome, and also galvanizing those to whom the statement does serve as direct inspiration. To state "Trans women aren't women" has the harmful intent of diminishing the lives of trans people, advocating for a reversal of trans rights, and making trans women feel that their voices should not be heard. It also has the statistical effect of increasing trans suicide rates.

Whether or not this is Rowling's ACTUAL intent, it is the effect of her words. And I refuse to believe someone as intelligent and literate as Rowling could be unaware of this.

Well, I’ll refer you again to the letter in the OP. As I said, this isn’t about Rowling but about a letter on justice and open debate. Even if Rowling may not be interested (and I’m not so sure about that), there are others who are. Did you even read the letter? It’s not just about Rowling.

I have read the letter, and it very clearly is addressing cancel culture, and the timing of it - just after a huge backlash against Rowling - is very suspicious. Nevertheless, I basically think the letter is nonsense with no substance. See my original post.

And with all due respect, I don’t believe I’ve referred to any of the advocates of cancel culture in the worst possible terms – to the point of calling them “deplorables” and insinuating that they’re politically malignant (people in this thread have brought up Nazis and the KKK), as many seem to be doing regarding Rowling and others who have somehow earned their wrath. There are those on the right-wing who might be calling cancel culture socialists, communists, Bolsheviks, etc., but I’m not doing that. At worst, I’m just saying that they’re misguided and wasting their energy and political capital on those who would otherwise be friendly to liberal and progressive causes.

You don't have to be calling for gas chambers to be re-opened for advocates of cancel culture in order to be doing them a disservice and treating them unfairly. I refer you back to the two incredibly ironic sentences you posted earlier:

"I don't know if this is so much a "debate" as much as an intentional and provocative misinterpretation of someone's comments and trying to make them appear far worse than they may actually be. It seems the only subject of "debate" is the notion that "J.K. Rowling is the worst person in the world and anyone who doesn't agree is a homophobe, a fascist, and a white supremacist.""

Do you admit that these two statements smack of hypocrisy? You must be able to see it, right?

I think this is extremely unwise, especially at this time when liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party should be striving for unity, not divisiveness.

I don't think it's unwise to stand up against intolerance and defend the rights and existence of marginalized people. We shouldn't drop people by the wayside just because it is "politically inopportune" to stand up for their right to exist. The people stoking divisiveness are the people who are diminishing those people's rights, and if you truly believed in not being divisive you would stand in solidarity with those who wish to stand against them.

What “moniker” are you referring to?

"Not harmful". Not a literal moniker, but it is a label that seems to be being applied arbitrarily.

I didn’t write the letter in the OP. I saw the letter and noted some of the signatories, including Noam Chomsky for whom I have a great deal of respect. I think the writers of that letter have a point, and that’s why I introduced this topic in the first place.

And I think the writers of that letter don't have a point, and offer nothing but tacit acceptance of ideological hierarchies while decrying smaller voices for daring to question them.

I respect many people who put their name to the letter, but do you honestly thing all 150 of the - including Chomsky - really understand the implications of it considering the timing and context it is in? Chomsky hasn't made even a single mention of the letter than I have found, so it's quite possible he simply read its platitudes, agreed that it is generally good to have free speech and debate, and signed the letter.

But when you actually look more in depth at the letter, it's not hard to see what it's really after. It's just pure placation, and no actual substance.

To be honest, I have no idea what potential evil lurks in the heart of J.K. Rowling.

Neither do I. But I have no interest in what evil may lurk in her heart. My concern is with her words, the intentionality of those words, and - most importantly - the effects they have on people.

You can never truly say whether somebody is racist "in their heart", but when somebody constantly speaks negatively about minorities, uses racial slurs, and often starts sentences with "I'm not racist, but...", I think we owe it to ourselves to think about that person and the effect they have on the world around them.

 

[Stevicus]

Could you at least point me towards one?

I recall seeing a clip from a talk show where Caitlyn Jenner threatened violence against one of the discussants. The reaction against Rowling is another example.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that trans suicide rates could be the fault of trans people?

Seriously, what the hell were you thinking when you brought up this comparison?

I was merely trying to point out that individuals are responsible for their own actions. A jilted lover might commit suicide, but who is to blame, the jilter or the jiltee? I've read some assertions that the high suicide rates of men are due to feminism. A lot of stuff like that gets tossed about, but does it have any merit?

Okay, so what determines that standard and how do we apply it?

If the standard is based on a set of principles, then adherence to those principles is a must. For example, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights is a set of principles, so to try to pick and choose the times when you're going to follow it and when you're not going to follow it seems inconsistent and hypocritical.

Except you don't have to "read too much into it". When a white supremacist says "I want Jews to not control the global media", they are no saying "All I want is for media to have an evenly distributed power structure where no one group holds a non-representative share of the influence". They are saying "Jews are in charge, we should blame them for societal ills, we should strip them of power and persecute them".

You're moving the goalposts. We were talking about the phrase "whites have rights too," which is a true statement and in accord with the UDHR. You may question the context of it and the agenda of the individual saying it, but the statement, in and of itself, is not incorrect.

Statements about "Jews controlling the media" are a different matter, since it involves otherizing, which is not consistent with the UDHR. It's similar with phrases such as "white privilege," since that also has the effect of otherizing.

This is not "reading into" something. This is their actual intent, cloaked behind seemingly "innocuous" language. The idea that we should take statements like these "at face value" is to explicitly deny intent, meaning, rhetoric and the very application of reason you are attempting to espouse. To simply pretend that the meaning of words and phrases, even in very specific context, should be simply accepted at face value is utterly irrational.

Who's being irrational here? You're trying to read paranoid conspiracies into every little thing someone says. Now that's irrational. If you sense a malignant intent, then you can address that, but you can't dismiss what they say at face value just because you imagine they might mean something else. If a white supremacist said "2+2=4," you can't say that it's wrong just because a white supremacist said it. That's ridiculous. 2+2 still equals 4 no matter who says it.

Now, maybe there is some hidden, evil intent behind their words, but that can be demonstrated in other ways. But that might require more effort.

This is false. In fact, not only would I say it is false, but the exact opposite is actually true.

If you live in a society that is not treating certain groups equally, YOU HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE GROUPS IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THAT IMBALANCE.

That's already been done - a long time ago. That, in and of itself, is not enough, but this doesn't even address the point I'm making.

If you refuse to "see" race, you will consequently miss out on seeing all of the racial discrimination - both conscious and unconscious - that occurs. It is a pretence, set up largely by people who have never had to feel that they fit a category, in order to deny the experiences of those who have been branded with those categories from birth. It may seem enlightened to think that by not analyzing society along racial, ethnic, cultural, sexual or other lines you are somehow being enlightened, but all you're really doing is making a headspace whereby you can freely ignore any effect society may have on those groups.

Acknowledging the existence of racial groups, etc., is ESSENTIAL to understanding how fair and equal society is being, and denying the existence of those groups only empowers inequality and allows it to continue, unchallenged.

So, in other words, you're saying that we have to be racists in order to end racism? Is that your final answer?

Are you a person of color? Do you live in America? Do you have any personal experience of actually living these principles and following them, or is this just something you read somewhere?

It just astonishes me how many kids who grew up in insular, lily-white surroundings can presume to dictate to others that they know everything there is to know about racism just because they saw it on TV or read about it in a book. Sure, they might claim to be "woke" and say all the right things that white liberals are supposed to say, but on the other hand, there are people of color who don't dig the whole "white liberal savior industrial complex" (as one former poster here used to call it).

We are dealing with real, physical problems. You think trans suicide rates aren't real? You think discrimination against racial, sexual or ethnic groups isn't real?

These are still VERY real issues, and in order to deal with them, we HAVE to acknowledge them.

You keep jumping back and forth between issues and taking my statements out of context. My point was that we need to deal with the real problems and not get bogged down in minutia and/or trying to read into every little thing that someone says. It's called "missing the forest through the trees."

Once again, this is your "surface level reading" argument kicking in. If you cannot see how responding to the statement "black lives matter" with "all lives matter" is a deliberate attempt to diminish or downplay the multitude of ways in which society devalues black lives, then I really don't know what to say to you.

For someone who claims to not know what to say, you sure say a lot. You assume a lot, too, perhaps a bit too much. That's part of the problem I'm addressing here.

If you are not capable of reading past the surface level, to analyze intent or effect, then what are you doing on the political debate forum?

I am certain capable of reading past the surface level, but again, that's beside the point. Your question about what I'm doing on a political debate forum is presumptuous and rude. Please try to stay on topic.

Because it does.

And that may very well be true, but I think it's more productive to address and attack that malignant agenda, not get bogged down in arguments over semantics.

As I said, the basic idea of "all lives matter" is consistent with the UDHR. Either you agree with that, or you don't. If you agree with the basic principles of human rights and the value of human life, then it's incongruous and possibly hypocritical to attack a statement which echoes that sentiment.

If you have reason to doubt someone's sincerity if they say "all lives matter," then say so. It's that simple. But to say that "all lives matter" is an unworthy or meritless principle misses the point entirely. It's the same thing as saying that 2+2 does not equal 4 just because you don't agree with something else the person might believe.

False. The people responding with "all lives matter" are the ones trying to distract. The statement "black lives matter" is implicit declaration that black people SHOULD MATTER and, again by implication, that the manner in which the system currently works, they are being treated as if they don't. THAT is the issue, and it's an issue that the "all lives matter" people are explicitly (yes, EXPLICITLY) attempting to downplay or ignore.

One side is attempting to address actual issues, the other side is using semantics and rhetoric to avoid acknowledging those issues.

Then why are you falling into that trap? Why get bogged down in semantics and rhetoric just because they say something? Stick to your principles, and you can't go wrong. If you say they're trying to distract (and I agree that they are), then...don't get distracted. Stay on course. It's really that simple.

Black lives matter are already dealing with that. What I'm talking about is the broader discussion and debate, and how "all lives matter" can be (and is) used to bring discussions to a dead stop.

Only if you yourself stop the discussion to start your own personal inquisition of each and every individual who utters a phrase. That's the wrong approach, and it appears more of a game of whack-a-mole to you rather than examining the broader discussion and debate about what we're talking about.

And I'm not sure that the real issues are being dealt with. We've been dealing with these basic issues for quite a long time now, and I'm not sure if the methods of dealing with them have had any real success.

For example, I've tried to advocate for greater transparency and openness in government, and especially with the police department. And yet, I find that the most vocal opposition to that has come more from liberals than anyone else.

The killing of Floyd was committed by a police officer in a city and state run by liberal Democrats - the same liberals who claim to support Black Lives Matter. And if they can't get it right, then maybe they've been on the wrong track all along. Don't you think that's possible? Or do you continue to insist that your way is the only way?

My proposal to deal with these issues would involve reining in the police, putting tighter controls on the courts and justice system which keep giving a pass to these police officers who kill innocent people. That, to me, would be a more productive, effective, and direct approach. The statement "Black Lives Matter" sounds good on the surface, but what is it really proposing? What are people being called upon to do? If you believe that this will convince die-hard racists to suddenly stop being racist, I think that's terribly naive. Those who already believe in the principle don't need to be convinced, so the whole thing pretty much leaves us all up in the clouds, with no real, concrete proposals.

While this is all cool, it does nothing to acknowledge the point I was making about how seemingly "innocuous" phrases and language can lead directly to the rise of extremely harmful movements and political upheavals.

It can, but not always. To get from point A to point Z, you have to go through all the other letters of the alphabet to get there.

And what happened to those movements with the attention they were getting?

Reagan was elected, and liberals mostly sold out to big business.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I recall seeing a clip from a talk show where Caitlyn Jenner threatened violence against one of the discussants. The reaction against Rowling is another example.

What are you talking about? How is Caitlyn Jenner threatening someone in a discussion an example of cancel culture being used against people who's statements/beliefs are not harmful?

I was merely trying to point out that individuals are responsible for their own actions. A jilted lover might commit suicide, but who is to blame, the jilter or the jiltee? I've read some assertions that the high suicide rates of men are due to feminism. A lot of stuff like that gets tossed about, but does it have any merit?

Are you serious right now?

You think that any direct links and correlates in suicide rates should just be ignored because... People who are suicidal could just CHOOSE not to be?

The way society and culture treats people has NO demonstrable impact on mental health? Is that an argument you would make?

If the standard is based on a set of principles, then adherence to those principles is a must. For example, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights is a set of principles, so to try to pick and choose the times when you're going to follow it and when you're not going to follow it seems inconsistent and hypocritical.

Sure.

So what values on display are being followed inconsistently?

You're moving the goalposts. We were talking about the phrase "whites have rights too," which is a true statement and in accord with the UDHR. You may question the context of it and the agenda of the individual saying it, but the statement, in and of itself, is not incorrect.

Which completely misses the point I was making. To say "the phrase itself is not incorrect" misses the whole point I was making about use, intent and context. It's about WHY THEY ARE SAYING IT IN THAT GIVEN CONTEXT and the NATURAL CONCLUSIONS OF BRINGING IT UP IN THAT CONTEXT.

Do you understand?

Statements about "Jews controlling the media" are a different matter, since it involves otherizing, which is not consistent with the UDHR. It's similar with phrases such as "white privilege," since that also has the effect of otherizing.

Only if you're especially sensitive and unaware of what the phrase actually means. Its acknowledging a real phenomenon, which is that fact that white people - by and large - take for granted certain things that people who are not white have to struggle with. It isn't "otherizing" to acknowledge a disparity along racial lines.

Who's being irrational here? You're trying to read paranoid conspiracies into every little thing someone says.

It's not a paranoid conspiracy. I've given you the studies.

Now that's irrational.

You are not equipped to judge that.

If you sense a malignant intent, then you can address that, but you can't dismiss what they say at face value just because you imagine they might mean something else.[ If a white supremacist said "2+2=4," you can't say that it's wrong just because a white supremacist said it. That's ridiculous. 2+2 still equals 4 no matter who says it.

This is just a strawman and will be ignored.

Now, maybe there is some hidden, evil intent behind their words,

Again, this is a strawman. I never presumed "hidden, evil intent". I explained the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of those words and the effect that they have. You can presume intent from the conclusions of those words, it's not "hidden".

That's already been done - a long time ago. That, in and of itself, is not enough, but this doesn't even address the point I'm making.

Yes, it does. You seem to act as if the very notion of mentioning races makes something racist, and you're pretending that this was all decided "a long time ago". Which is nonsense. Racial disparity ABSOLUTELY still exists, and refusing to talk about it by pretending that race isn't an issue achieves nothing but allowing that disparity to continue to exist.

So, in other words, you're saying that we have to be racists in order to end racism? Is that your final answer?

You've just perfectly demonstrated what I just said above.

Do you honestly see no difference whatsoever in simply "acknowledging the existence in race, between races, and racial disparity" and "racism"?

Are you serious?

Are you a person of color? Do you live in America? Do you have any personal experience of actually living these principles and following them, or is this just something you read somewhere?

This is all irrelevant. My opinion on the subject is drawn from a variety of sources, as well as my logic and rationality.

It just astonishes me how many kids who grew up in insular, lily-white surroundings can presume to dictate to others that they know everything there is to know about racism just because they saw it on TV or read about it in a book. Sure, they might claim to be "woke" and say all the right things that white liberals are supposed to say, but on the other hand, there are people of color who don't dig the whole "white liberal savior industrial complex" (as one former poster here used to call it).

This is just childish hyperbole and has no place in rational discourse.

Pack it in.

You keep jumping back and forth between issues and taking my statements out of context. My point was that we need to deal with the real problems and not get bogged down in minutia and/or trying to read into every little thing that someone says. It's called "missing the forest through the trees."

So trans suicide and trans rights are not a real problem?

I am certain capable of reading past the surface level, but again, that's beside the point. Your question about what I'm doing on a political debate forum is presumptuous and rude. Please try to stay on topic.

You're the one who believes we should never question or presume intent - even with good reason. If you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge the existence of intent and context when words are used, you are completely incapable of debating political issues.

I'm sorry if you think that's rude, but it's true.

And that may very well be true, but I think it's more productive to address and attack that malignant agenda, not get bogged down in arguments over semantics.

Then it helps if people would stop dragging semantic arguments into it.

As I said, the basic idea of "all lives matter" is consistent with the UDHR. Either you agree with that, or you don't. If you agree with the basic principles of human rights and the value of human life, then it's incongruous and possibly hypocritical to attack a statement which echoes that sentiment.

I'm getting tired of having to explain this over and over.

Do you or do you not understand the ways in which the statement "all lives matter" is used is done so specifically to diminish the arguments made by BLM? Do you or do you not therefore understand that in the broader political context, to state "all lives matter" is an explicit statement AGAINST BLM? If you're saying "all lives matter", but you actually just agree with it as a surface-level statement and also support BLM and black rights, you are doing nothing by saying it other than forwarding the agenda of people who want to diminish the BLM movement.

This is not complicated stuff. Phrases, in contexts, have different meaning than they do in a vacuum. Do you not understand this?

If you have reason to doubt someone's sincerity if they say "all lives matter," then say so. It's that simple. But to say that "all lives matter" is an unworthy or meritless principle misses the point entirely. It's the same thing as saying that 2+2 does not equal 4 just because you don't agree with something else the person might believe.

Once again, you simply ignore context and assume it's about people who "sincerely believe it" or not.

It isn't that simple.

Then why are you falling into that trap? Why get bogged down in semantics and rhetoric just because they say something? Stick to your principles, and you can't go wrong. If you say they're trying to distract (and I agree that they are), then...don't get distracted. Stay on course. It's really that simple.

Except that these kinds of movements pervert the entire discourse. They have to be challenged.

Only if you yourself stop the discussion to start your own personal inquisition of each and every individual who utters a phrase. That's the wrong approach, and it appears more of a game of whack-a-mole to you rather than examining the broader discussion and debate about what we're talking about.

And I'm not sure that the real issues are being dealt with. We've been dealing with these basic issues for quite a long time now, and I'm not sure if the methods of dealing with them have had any real success.

For example, I've tried to advocate for greater transparency and openness in government, and especially with the police department. And yet, I find that the most vocal opposition to that has come more from liberals than anyone else.

The killing of Floyd was committed by a police officer in a city and state run by liberal Democrats - the same liberals who claim to support Black Lives Matter. And if they can't get it right, then maybe they've been on the wrong track all along. Don't you think that's possible? Or do you continue to insist that your way is the only way?

What do you think party politics has to do with institutional racism? The cops didn't kill Floyd on the orders of a Democrat or Republican. They killed him because they are complicit members of an organization which enacts violence against unarmed civilians with impunity, and a culture that devalues life in general (and minority lives especially).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My proposal to deal with these issues would involve reining in the police, putting tighter controls on the courts and justice system which keep giving a pass to these police officers who kill innocent people. That, to me, would be a more productive, effective, and direct approach.

And what are these controls and who determines what they are?

What have you thought to the notion of police defunding, proposed by BLM?

The statement "Black Lives Matter" sounds good on the surface, but what is it really proposing? What are people being called upon to do?

Acknowledge the disparity in how much black lives seem to matter in the police and criminal justice system in America, and galvanize them to do something about it.

If you believe that this will convince die-hard racists to suddenly stop being racist, I think that's terribly naive.

It isn't, and never has been the point. It's to draw attention to a specific problem by what should be a non-racist government and generally non-racist populace. I've never met a BLM supporter who imagines they're going to change the mind of active racists. It's about alleviating the systemic racism that still exists in systems which are essentially supposed to function without any racial bias.

Those who already believe in the principle don't need to be convinced, so the whole thing pretty much leaves us all up in the clouds, with no real, concrete proposals.

Do you... Do you think that BLM is just a slogan?

And literally nothing else?

Nothing?

Seriously?

Reagan was elected, and liberals mostly sold out to big business.

Ah, so the system put them back in place, because it was always rigged against them.

 

[Stevicus]

What are you talking about? How is Caitlyn Jenner threatening someone in a discussion an example of cancel culture being used against people who's statements/beliefs are not harmful?

It's all part of the same culture.

Are you serious right now?

I was when I wrote that.

You think that any direct links and correlates in suicide rates should just be ignored because... People who are suicidal could just CHOOSE not to be?

Did I say they should be ignored? Geez, talk about strawmen.

The way society and culture treats people has NO demonstrable impact on mental health? Is that an argument you would make?

I didn't make that argument. But if you're striving for consistency, just keep in mind that setting such a precedent would open up quite a can of worms of numerous other people who feel maligned and disaffected by society and culture.

Sure.


So what values on display are being followed inconsistently?

We're discussing them right now. If you're saying that it's wrong to say "all lives matter," then this means you do not support the principles found in the UDHR. Is that the point you mean to come across, or do you hold to a consistent set of principles?

Which completely misses the point I was making. To say "the phrase itself is not incorrect" misses the whole point I was making about use, intent and context. It's about WHY THEY ARE SAYING IT IN THAT GIVEN CONTEXT and the NATURAL CONCLUSIONS OF BRINGING IT UP IN THAT CONTEXT.


Do you understand?

Of course I understand. I can tell that I understand this issue far better than you do, so maybe you should be the one to pack it in.

Only if you're especially sensitive and unaware of what the phrase actually means. Its acknowledging a real phenomenon, which is that fact that white people - by and large - take for granted certain things that people who are not white have to struggle with. It isn't "otherizing" to acknowledge a disparity along racial lines.

Here's an idea: Maybe people should just say what they mean and mean what they say. If a phrase or slogan needs a long explanation and a bunch of footnotes, then maybe it's not particularly useful. You ever heard of the concept known as "KISS"?


For one thing, how is "white" defined? Officially, anyone deemed "caucasian" is considered "white," which includes people from India, Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Southern Europe, as well as most Hispanics in the U.S. and the rest of Latin America (for all practical purposes, although the definitions can vary).

It's not a paranoid conspiracy. I've given you the studies.

Not regarding this.


What seems obvious here is that you and "cancel culture" want to tar and feather people because you think they're hiding some hidden agenda behind what appears to be an innocuous statement. Rather than attack ideas, you would rather attack people. That's the bottom line here. You should learn to attack the message, not the messenger.

You are not equipped to judge that.

You say.

This is just a strawman and will be ignored.

No, it's not a strawman. You attacked the principle that "all lives matter" because you believe that there's some hidden intent behind it. So, either you're saying you don't believe in the principles in the UDHR...or maybe you're trying to say something else. I said before that it's better to just take it face value, but you said no, there's some hidden agenda at work and that it's just meant to distract.

Again, this is a strawman. I never presumed "hidden, evil intent". I explained the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of those words and the effect that they have. You can presume intent from the conclusions of those words, it's not "hidden".

There are no "natural consequences" of words, unless you're asserting that those reacting to those words are incapable of thinking and using the English language.

Yes, it does. You seem to act as if the very notion of mentioning races makes something racist, and you're pretending that this was all decided "a long time ago". Which is nonsense. Racial disparity ABSOLUTELY still exists, and refusing to talk about it by pretending that race isn't an issue achieves nothing but allowing that disparity to continue to exist.

Your statement above said:

YOU HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE GROUPS IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THAT IMBALANCE.

I can definitely assure you that the existence of these groups was acknowledged centuries before you or I were even born. So, yes, it's already been done. That's a true statement, and it's not pretending.


But as I said, acknowledging the existence of these groups is not enough to achieve the goal of racial equality and justice.


Likewise, there have been active and sincere efforts to address the imbalances which exist in society, but as I've also said, society took a wrong turn. There are reasons why these imbalances still exist. I've tried to explain that, too, but I guess you don't really want to listen. You'd rather just bellow at me and then pat yourself on the back because you think you're doing good.

You've just perfectly demonstrated what I just said above.


Do you honestly see no difference whatsoever in simply "acknowledging the existence in race, between races, and racial disparity" and "racism"?


Are you serious?

I didn't say there was no difference. You keep harping about me allegedly "strawmanning," but you're doing it here with me.


But I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about, something recent that happened. There was an anti-gentrification protest in Seattle the other day (https://nypost.com/2020/08/14/seattle-blm-protesters-demand-white-people-give-up-their-homes/), and the protesters were marching through a neighborhood which happened to have white people living there. They were yelling at them to get out and give up their homes, just because they're white people who lived in an area which was gentrified.


Mind you, I've never been in favor of gentrification. Whether or not it should be legal is a larger issue, but at present, it is legal. Even the Clintons moved into a gentrified area of Harlem after they left the White House.


But the point is, just because some people insist on embracing identity politics, which lumps different people into their own specific groups (creating a group identity and group mentality), it leads to otherizing - which leads to a crowd of people shouting at residents in their own homes and saying they have to get out because they're the "wrong" race. In all honesty, I think those protesters were probably a bunch of crackpots and did not in any way reflect the majority of Black Lives Matter protesters. But these things do happen, and they're clearly influenced by the same kind of ideas and methods you're supporting.


The thing is, you're totally missing the point. I believe that we need to deal with these problems on a practical and tangible level. We have a problem with affordable housing in this country, and this can be fixed by implementing a program to build more housing and set price controls. The schools in many areas are sub-standard and underperforming, and they need to be improved. Healthcare is in dire need of improvement, along with some form of single-payer system to make it more affordable and accessible. This is also true for mental health services, especially drug and alcohol treatment. Improvements in mass transit, infrastructure, utilities, etc. are also needed. These are real world, tangible, practical improvements and reforms which are doable, but there are powerful factions in this country which generally oppose these kinds of improvements and social services (and even some of those who do have been known to help themselves to the cookie jar on occasion).


And we also need to make the police more transparent and open. That's another thing that we can do.

This is all irrelevant. My opinion on the subject is drawn from a variety of sources, as well as my logic and rationality.

Well, I'm just wondering how much about this topic you actually know, whether it's from personal experience and observation, or if it's more in the abstract and theoretical from your vantage point.

This is just childish hyperbole and has no place in rational discourse.


Pack it in.

Well, you're one to talk. In any case, it's just an observation. Something I've noticed.

So trans suicide and trans rights are not a real problem?

No, I didn't say that. You keep peppering with these provocative and antagonistic responses. It makes me wonder if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, or if you have any particular goal or objective in mind.

You're the one who believes we should never question or presume intent - even with good reason. If you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge the existence of intent and context when words are used, you are completely incapable of debating political issues.


I'm sorry if you think that's rude, but it's true.

No, it's not "true" just because you say so. It's just your opinion, and it's a misguided opinion at that. There is no "one true way" to debate political issues. You may believe there is, but you would be wrong.


I actually believe it's more productive and useful to debate ideas and issues, rather than make it about the personalities of the individuals involved in a debate.


If you wish to psychoanalyze people and make guesses as to their "intent," then feel free, but I think that would be better suited for the psychology forum, not a political forum.

Then it helps if people would stop dragging semantic arguments into it.

Yes, but that's all you're doing. You're literally doing nothing else except that. In fact, that's really what "cancel culture" is all about.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm getting tired of having to explain this over and over.


Do you or do you not understand the ways in which the statement "all lives matter" is used is done so specifically to diminish the arguments made by BLM?

Yes, I do understand it, but why do you feel the need to pick it apart and get bogged down in that particular statement? What purpose does it serve? What message do you hope to send?

Do you or do you not therefore understand that in the broader political context, to state "all lives matter" is an explicit statement AGAINST BLM? If you're saying "all lives matter", but you actually just agree with it as a surface-level statement and also support BLM and black rights, you are doing nothing by saying it other than forwarding the agenda of people who want to diminish the BLM movement.

The political context may be broader than you realize. You don't have to keep explaining this over and over, but it seems you have a very rigid viewpoint, you believe that you're right and that I'm wrong - and that's the end of it, in your mind. You keep trying to make the subject about me rather than about the issues under discussion.

This is not complicated stuff. Phrases, in contexts, have different meaning than they do in a vacuum. Do you not understand this?

The point is, there's no reason to get bogged down in that.


What is it about "phrases" (in whatever context) that's sooooooo important to you that you feel the need to argue over semantics? Words are just words. Talk is cheap. It's actions and actual concrete proposals, those are what's important. As you say, it's not complicated, but one thing I do understand is that there's no point in getting all worked up over these "phrases." Please consider this, just for a moment, before you feel the need to "explain it all over again."

Once again, you simply ignore context and assume it's about people who "sincerely believe it" or not.


It isn't that simple.

I'm not ignoring the context. I'm just suggesting that maybe, just maybe, you might want to pick your battles. That particular phrase is not worth arguing about.

Except that these kinds of movements pervert the entire discourse. They have to be challenged.

Well, there are ways of challenging them. You seem to think that yours is the only one true way, and I disagree. These kinds of movements you're referring to can only pervert the entire discourse if you let them, if you fall into their traps where you're arguing over a phrase, then it takes attention off the more tangible issues at hand.

What do you think party politics has to do with institutional racism? The cops didn't kill Floyd on the orders of a Democrat or Republican. They killed him because they are complicit members of an organization which enacts violence against unarmed civilians with impunity, and a culture that devalues life in general (and minority lives especially).

Who is supposed to be in control of that organization? The elected government is expected and required to oversee and manage that organization, and restrain them when necessary. If they weren't minding the store and watching what was going on under their very noses, then they're just as complicit. They failed in one of the core responsibilities of an elected government. I'm not saying that anyone personally ordered the Floyd killing. However, the reason I mentioned it is because the voters in that jurisdiction apparently believed that Democrats would be more supportive of Civil Rights and believe in the principles of Black Lives Matter. The local politicians were surely aware of the concept and the context in which it came about. After so many previous incidents of killings of black people by cops, the politicians at all levels promised reforms and improvements in police training and so forth.


Yet, despite all that, this killing still happened. That's what we need to ask about.

 

[Stevicus]

And what are these controls and who determines what they are?

Ideally, the citizenry and their elected representatives. The police are supposed to work for us, the people. We need to remember that and realize that what they do and the ways that they do it are subject to scrutiny and oversight by the people and their elected governments. Somewhere along the line, society became more and more gripped by fear. I can't really say when it happened, but I noticed a gradual change over the years. Some of it may have been due to the Cold War, but there was also the war on drugs and growing fears of escalated gang violence, drug cartels. There were various acts of terrorism, domestic and against US targets overseas. The OKC bombing, the Atlanta bombing, the first WTC bombing and then later, 9/11 - it brought about a greater level of fear and calls for armed force, both domestically and globally.

The police also have a long history, and while some people try to keep the police divorced from politics, they were in a position where they had to make broad reforms and address issues of police brutality and blatant racism that had been going on for decades and decades before any of the allegations were given the slightest bit of attention. Since those "bad old days," the police have made quite an effort at public and community relations to try to demonstrate that they've improved and are dedicated to the law and the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. They go out of their way to tell the people that the police are well trained and most are not at all racist - except for "a few bad apples."

That's what they tell us. But as I keep saying, talk is cheap, and we have to look at their actions and the results of their actions.

But I would also suggest that it's not just the police. I'm not mitigating or minimizing their role in this, but the police are lower in the hierarchy than the political and judicial authorities who have also taken an oath to the Constitution and have an obligation to see that the rights of human beings are honored and protected. But it even goes further than that. The public in general wants protection from whatever "boogieman" they're afraid of, and the wealthy and powerful elite want to make sure that their positions are protected as well. Also, many jurisdictions realized that the police can also be a cash cow in issuing citations and fines for petty violations, which can also increase tensions between the police and the public. Not to mention the whole war on drugs, which has been a long-term disgrace, yet still largely supported by both parties (although it was originally the Republicans' idea).

What have you thought to the notion of police defunding, proposed by BLM?

I think some tasks currently performed by the police could probably be taken out of their hands and put into other people's hands (such as social workers, depending on the situation). The police are often tasked with a lot of things that could possibly be better handled by other trained professionals. And if they ever call off the war on drugs, then the police would need far less funding.

I don't think anyone is seriously proposing totally defunding the police. But more citizen oversight and greater attention to the activities of the police would definitely be steps in the right direction. If it really is just "a few bad apples," then the police really have no real reason to oppose such oversight and scrutiny. They should welcome it. But more still might be needed, such as reforms in the judiciary and the other branches of government since they've been allowing it to happen. The cop who killed Floyd had multiple complaints against him, and yet he was able to keep working.

I've observed that the outrage is not just over what the cops did, but the fact that the justice system doesn't give the people any justice. If the judicial branch did its job, then the cops wouldn't have been able to get away with all these killings.

Acknowledge the disparity in how much black lives seem to matter in the police and criminal justice system in America, and galvanize them to do something about it.

Well, yes, I agree that we have to do something about it. We should have done something about it a long time ago, and the powers that be had convinced much of the public that they had done something about it. This is a recurring case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

In the end, it all comes down to politics. The elected officials will decide whatever "something" they're going to do about this problem. They might pay lip service to appease the masses. They'll give heartfelt appeals and praise for Black Lives Matter. They might even make some symbolic gestures which might placate some folks.

The political reality in America has been that nobody really wants to rock the boat or make any real sweeping changes in the system. There are some who believe that our system is the greatest and that America, as a nation, can do no wrong. They generally believe the "few bad apples" perspective and believe that "the system works" in terms of punishing any wrongdoing by the police or other officials.

So, by the time it reaches the spin cycle, people will think they're "doing something" when they're just falling for the same old political tricks and manipulations. From what it appears, most governments seem to be in damage control mode these days. They're not really sure exactly what to do, and many of them are facing severe financial difficulties due to COVID, while Congress is deadlocked over the stimulus bill. The whole country is pretty much FUBAR these days, so I'm not sure where this is all headed.

But yeah, we need to do something.

It isn't, and never has been the point. It's to draw attention to a specific problem by what should be a non-racist government and generally non-racist populace. I've never met a BLM supporter who imagines they're going to change the mind of active racists. It's about alleviating the systemic racism that still exists in systems which are essentially supposed to function without any racial bias.

Then it seems the system must be changed. We are in agreement here. But we also have to acknowledge that a large part of the problem is also economic, and that's the elephant in the room that the capitalists would prefer that everyone ignore. I'm not saying that capitalists are racists (and I would guess most of them probably aren't), but they're generally not willing to support the kind of systemic restructuring and redistribution of wealth which would be required to bring about a more adequate solution to the problem at hand. They may very well sincerely want to "do something" about the problem, but they've tended to go for the cheaper solutions. And as the saying goes, you get what you pay for.

Do you... Do you think that BLM is just a slogan?

And literally nothing else?

Nothing?

Seriously?

BLM is a name, although there have been many organizations and ideas associated with the Civil Rights movement. They've gone by many different names, and many still work for the same cause today. I'm sure they support BLM, too, but what's in a name? If the cause is what matters, then should one name have any precedence over another?

Ah, so the system put them back in place, because it was always rigged against them.

Well, as it happened, few people really wanted to change it, as there were too many who had a stake in the system and were compelled to defend and maintain it. One thing that I've noticed over the course of history is that, since the end of the Civil War, a significant part of our political culture has been to propagate the idea that America is a land of freedom where all are equal. This is where ideas like "separate but equal" came from. There have been some changes to the system since then, and as I mentioned, they've gone out of their way to try to demonstrate that the system is fair and that it's not rigged. And anyone who thinks it is rigged is lambasted as someone wearing a tinfoil hat.