Poll: Is Woke a new religion?

[Estro Felino]

Do you believe this will prepare them for the real world, or are you just posting nonsense because you don't have a real answer?

I never joke about Disney,.

 

[Father Heathen]

I never joke about Disney,.

Then answer the question.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think kids should be educated with Disney movies, filled with romance and chivalry.
They should be their bible.

Whilst I don't mean this as an attack on you personally, if there was a vomit/shake head emoji, I'd be using it in response to this.

Just runs sooooooo contrary to my belief (and practice) in educating kids, in all contexts.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think kids should be educated with Disney movies, filled with romance and chivalry.
They should be their bible.

As much as I love Disney.
That’s kind of setting them up to fail.
Kids need to learn about the world, in age appropriate ways of course. And Disney films just can’t do that very efficiently. I mean it’s like relying on fiction exclusively to teach them about history. Guess which class they’ll fail?

Besides Disney is quite the evil company lol

 

[lewisnotmiller]

• The article is, naturally, entirely focused on American politics and culture. This is understandable given the focus of the Atlantic, but it also fails to take into account the usefulness of "canceling" in some instances. For example, in Germany and Sweden, Nazi speech and symbols are banned (which I fully support), and a politician in the far-right Sweden Democrats party was forced to resign over denigrating comments about Anne Frank.

True enough. Worth noting, though...I'm not American, and I'm also not an advocate for unfettered speech. Nazi symbology is banned where I live, for example, and it was the centre left who instituted that, and who I voted for. My point isn't that we should never cancel anything. My point is that we have the balance wrong to some degree...or that the trend concerns me.

White supremacists in the US might say they were "canceled" or had their "First Amendment rights" violated over such a thing, but most of Europe is far more stringent when it comes to hate speech. I see the above example as a perfect illustration of why it is indeed sometimes necessary to sideline and shun specific segments of public speakers and ideologues.

Sure.
1. White supremicists can go suck an exhaust pipe for all I care, but I'm not making decisions to align OR react to them. They are not given that level of value or importance.
2. Where we restrict speech or shutdown open dialogue, I'd see it as at best a necessary evil. It can be useful only in relation to what not shutting it down leads to. We should never see it as good, or without cost.

This also ties into my disagreement that everything is gray, at least in practice: some things are so clear-cut that not taking appropriate action arguably contributes to significant harm.

Arguably? I agree, but that seems to indictate there is an element of grey...

• When terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in France, the French government refused to budge or "cancel" the magazine for the offensive satire. At the same time, France has a ban on Nazi symbols and speech. It retains the right to offend, but it doesn't protect the right to incite against and dehumanize an entire group.

Seems kinda grey to me.
To be clear, I'm not AT ALL indicating that everything is morally equivalent or anything of that sort. Grey runs the range from almost black to basically white. But just like yin-yan, I think it's important to remember that nothing is purely white or black.
If it helps, give me a couple of specific examples where you think it is, and I'll spell out what I mean in a more concrete fashion.

I'm not suggesting there aren't 'bad' things, or that I don't have strong opinions on right and wrong.

This seems to me far more reasonable than US laws that allow hate speech. I have to wonder how much individual or online "canceling" would be happening in the US if it had more robust hate speech laws. Would individuals feel they even needed to carry out online campaigns to shun or call out certain people?

Yup. I think so. That happens here, despite our more robust hate speech laws because much of what I'm talking about is not hate speech. It is, instead, use of various rhetorical or social devices to control speech, and offer judgement on other people, quite part from our laws.

A simple example in the last week is that trans activists in Australia called for a ban on the new Harry Potter game, a story you are familiar with internationally.

The game is the biggest selling game in Australia right now. If trans activists were disappointed with that, but allowed that people can ultimately make their own choices, and they'll continue trying to convince people to shun the game, I'd say there's no issue.

But there have been incidents of players being called out as transphobes quite aggressively in in-game chats. One of the activists leading the boycott calls also got on national TV and states that the healthy sales figures for the game is clear evidence of how transphobic Australia is.

They would be examples of behaviour from a progressive group which lacks nuance, introspection and evidence.
I also suspect it does little to broaden their cause, is counterproductive and leads to reactionism, but that's just a guess.

In my opinion, one is bound to get an incomplete picture by looking at "cancel culture" in the US in isolation of its blasé laws toward hate speech, defamation, and guns. When people feel the law is not protecting them, sometimes they try to take matters into their own hands via other means, such as online campaigns.

The same justification would be used by the right and the left. The US is more polarised than other nations, but I don't think this is a uniquely American issue, nor do I believe it possible to isolate ourselves from US trends enough that they don't colour or culture to some degree.

The kind of lax speech regulation present in the US is a global anomaly: much of Europe has a balance between free speech and opposition to inciting and hateful speech. China and Russia go overboard and crack down on the tiniest hint of political nonconformity. The Middle East also goes overboard in a theocratically leaning manner by cracking down on religious nonconformity.

Consequently, any discussion about "cancel culture" where the whole focus is on the US without consideration for the laws and cultures of other countries seems to me lacking depth at best. Practically all other developed countries either have far stricter gun laws that render some hate crimes harder to carry out—or at least less likely to be fatal—or hate speech laws that keep the inciters in check to one extent or another. The US has neither, so it makes perfect sense to me that there would be a liberal overreaction as well as more political polarization, online mobs, and well-intentioned but misguided "cancellation" of certain individuals.

Any discussion or viewpoint put forth by me is hardly likely to have its entire focus on the US, and Id push back strongly on the notion that it would lack depth.
I know you don't mean that in a personal sense, but there is a willingness from many progressives to associate their own beliefs with good beliefs, and their own 'common sense' with evidence.
That absolutely exists on the right, too, and probably even moreso. I'm just not sure why that's particularly informative when we're taking about left wing politics.

Otherwise you could read this as justifying reactionary behaviours from the left as 'misguided but well meaning', whilst seeing similar reactionary behaviour from the right (a key consideration of the OP) as 'misguided and harmful'.

Do I think there's a problem of overreaction and online mobs? Yes. Do I think the solution is just to tell them to be "more tolerant" or attack them for being part of "cancel culture"? Not necessarily; perhaps in only a subset of cases at most. I think any real solution would be far more complex and multifaceted than that.

Solutions? We can't even agree there is a problem...lol.

At a simplistic and personal level, I am trying to steelman nuanced arguments from the right, and seek out alternative views to at least hold progressive views to account.
And realise that many people calling out 'bad behaviour' are spending much more time on their Tweets than they are actually studying the issues they are freely spouting off about.

Discussions like this...between you and me...are a better path.

Basically we just need more people like us, and less of 'them'. Totally not a binary and self-serving position at all!!!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think kids should be educated with Disney movies, filled with romance and chivalry.
They should be their bible.

Amd teach them nothing about life or the world and let them believe the world is safe, simple, black and white, and good always wins in the end?
I'd rather not raise profoundly naive children.

 

[icehorse]

(Continued.)

Another thing that I think is important to take into account is that different political groups use different tactics either in perceived self-preservation or advancement of their ideology. The right wing has pushed forward legislation to curtail gender-affirming care, some preventive measures against COVID-19, and abortion, among other things. Even interracial and same-sex marriage are potentially on the chopping block now.

With the above in mind, why would the right even need to "cancel" university professors? Their tactics are vastly different and more forceful than that. When was the last time the left has advanced legislation that encroached on the rights of Christians to practice their religion, for example? Or legislation that has threatened conservatives' access to certain forms of health care (e.g., reproductive health care)?

This is why I think looking at the bigger picture is crucial in such a discussion. If we just zoom in on "cancel culture" and don't examine the larger cultural, legal, and political context in which it is occurring, we're bound to get an incomplete and biased picture.

I suspect we're largely in agreement on these points. Personally, I'm concerned about extremism in general, both from the right and from the left.

It might seem that the right is doing more damage than the left, but there are bad side-effects being caused by the extreme left. For example, last week it was like shooting fish in a barrel for Sarah H Sanders to do some effective fear mongering concerning the extreme left.

Zooming out - which I'm a huge fan of - I grow alarmed whenever I see dogma gaining traction. I grow alarmed whenever I see pushes to chip away at free speech.

 

[icehorse]

The left is just like any other group in that it also includes extremists, ideologues, and demagogues. Acknowledging this is fundamental if one is to prioritize evidence and consistent values over identity politics.

Hooray !!

 

[icehorse]

However, where I find a lot of room for objection is in what different people classify as "too far left." A private platform banning anti-vax or homophobic rhetoric isn't being "too far left," nor is a university that fires a professor for intentionally misgendering students. Calling these "too far left" when pro-USSR communists and Marxists-Leninists exist is a stark dilution of the phrase.

I think we oughtn't conflate private platforms with public ones, this is tricky enough as it is

As for the misgendering of students, man I think this is tricky business. It really starts to skirt compelled speech and THAT is a path to societal destruction!

As for communists, I think we have to make do with the free speech laws we have. If we start thinking we can somehow censor some economic systems, again, that's a very dangerous slippery slope.

 

[icehorse]

For instance, if someone believes that LGBT people are abominations who shouldn't have equal legal rights, it seems to me that they should feel like they can't freely share that opinion in some circles. You don't go into a place and tell people there that they're inferior or unworthy of equal rights and expect a warm welcome.

Interesting dilemma. Religious fundamentalists across many popular faiths believe that the LGBTQ+ are abominations. Islamists are one such example, but when I criticize their intolerance, I'm often labeled "Islamophobic".

 

[icehorse]

That happens here, despite our more robust hate speech laws because much of what I'm talking about is not hate speech.

Can you summarize these hate speech laws? I often find hate speech laws to be dangerously subjective and/or slanted.

 

[Debater Slayer]

True enough. Worth noting, though...I'm not American, and I'm also not an advocate for unfettered speech. Nazi symbology is banned where I live, for example, and it was the centre left who instituted that, and who I voted for. My point isn't that we should never cancel anything. My point is that we have the balance wrong to some degree...or that the trend concerns me.

Agreed. Personally, the area where trends of oversensitivity seem most noticeable and alarming to me are with regard to discourse around Islam and its various sects. I also acknowledge that the increased noticeability is almost surely because of my own background; I think everyone has biases and priorities that they should be aware of.

Sure.
1. White supremicists can go suck an exhaust pipe for all I care, but I'm not making decisions to align OR react to them. They are not given that level of value or importance.
2. Where we restrict speech or shutdown open dialogue, I'd see it as at best a necessary evil. It can be useful only in relation to what not shutting it down leads to. We should never see it as good, or without cost.

1) I think white supremacists do require decisions that react to them when they become big enough of a problem, and they are a significant problem in the US and parts of Europe.

2) Agreed.

Arguably? I agree, but that seems to indictate there is an element of grey...

I think such things are almost invariably best considered on a case-by-case basis, so I try to accommodate that in my wording by saying "almost," "arguably," etc. I can't make an absolute statement... except this one stating that I can't make an absolute statement. (Sorry, I had to.)

Seems kinda grey to me.
To be clear, I'm not AT ALL indicating that everything is morally equivalent or anything of that sort. Grey runs the range from almost black to basically white. But just like yin-yan, I think it's important to remember that nothing is purely white or black.
If it helps, give me a couple of specific examples where you think it is, and I'll spell out what I mean in a more concrete fashion.

I'm not suggesting there aren't 'bad' things, or that I don't have strong opinions on right and wrong.

I know you're not suggesting that; I should clarify that I usually don't intend my points to be applied to the person I'm talking to. I usually speak generally in such discussions.

As for a couple of examples where an issue is black and white (or as close as it could possibly get):

1) The genocide of Uyghurs in China.

2) Advocates of banning interracial marriage versus those who identify such a ban as racist, dehumanizing, and utterly outdated.

I intentionally avoided pulling a Godwin and mentioning anything about Nazi Germany, because I'd rather focus on current examples.

Yup. I think so. That happens here, despite our more robust hate speech laws because much of what I'm talking about is not hate speech. It is, instead, use of various rhetorical or social devices to control speech, and offer judgement on other people, quite part from our laws.

A simple example in the last week is that trans activists in Australia called for a ban on the new Harry Potter game, a story you are familiar with internationally.

The game is the biggest selling game in Australia right now. If trans activists were disappointed with that, but allowed that people can ultimately make their own choices, and they'll continue trying to convince people to shun the game, I'd say there's no issue.

But there have been incidents of players being called out as transphobes quite aggressively in in-game chats. One of the activists leading the boycott calls also got on national TV and states that the healthy sales figures for the game is clear evidence of how transphobic Australia is.

They would be examples of behaviour from a progressive group which lacks nuance, introspection and evidence.
I also suspect it does little to broaden their cause, is counterproductive and leads to reactionism, but that's just a guess.

I agree that it's unreasonable to try to get the game banned or imply that anyone who buys it is transphobic. However, how common are people who hold such positions? As a rough percentage of the left, are they in any way enough to constitute a trend or larger social movement?

There have always been fringes within all groups. Where I think they warrant strong scrutiny is when they have enough influence or numbers to drastically change the course of the larger movement (i.e., liberalism) or society that they're a part of.

]The same justification would be used by the right and the left. The US is more polarised than other nations, but I don't think this is a uniquely American issue, nor do I believe it possible to isolate ourselves from US trends enough that they don't colour or culture to some degree.

It's not uniquely American, but I definitely think it's more amplified in the US compared to most other countries. I would also guess that it's more noticeable in Australia than in, say, non-Western countries just because of the shared language and common cultural elements with the US.

The degree to which American cultural and political trends color other countries' seems to me heavily decided by multiple factors that differ from country to country. For example, in my own country, most people are below the poverty line, and they don't even know English. Most wouldn't know or care about American culture, nor would they care about its politics beyond the fact that the US has a history of heavy-handed interventionism in our region.

If I went up to a random person on the street in my city and asked them whether they were concerned about "cancel culture," they most likely wouldn't even know what I was talking about—and this is a huge city for finding work, where you'll find some of the most educated people in the country. Our main issues are overwhelmingly distant from that; people like me who know English enough to debate such topics online are a tiny minority.

Any discussion or viewpoint put forth by me is hardly likely to have its entire focus on the US, and Id push back strongly on the notion that it would lack depth.
I know you don't mean that in a personal sense, but there is a willingness from many progressives to associate their own beliefs with good beliefs, and their own 'common sense' with evidence.
That absolutely exists on the right, too, and probably even moreso. I'm just not sure why that's particularly informative when we're taking about left wing politics.

Otherwise you could read this as justifying reactionary behaviours from the left as 'misguided but well meaning', whilst seeing similar reactionary behaviour from the right (a key consideration of the OP) as 'misguided and harmful'.

Like I said above (and as you recognized), I don't mean my statements in a personal way. They're meant to be general.

I think that on average, progressives are indeed far more likely than conservatives to have "good beliefs" and a common sense more aligned with evidence. I can't look at a progressive who supports LGBT rights and religious freedom and put their worldview in a similar category as a conservative who opposes both or wants them heavily restricted by state law. The same goes for a progressive who followed preventive measures during the pandemic and a conservative who denied that there was even a contagious disease or one who propagated conspiracy theories about vaccines.

I don't believe that people should toot their own horns or say "I have good beliefs!" and become complacent or self-aggrandizing. This risks backsliding due to lack of introspection, among other problems. I'm just saying that I absolutely don't regard leftist and conservative politics as very similar, and I see multiple reasons to push back when someone tries to argue that "both sides are the same" or "both sides are very similar." They're not; one side is unequivocally far more problematic at this time.

This ties into my statement about "misguided but well-meaning": some beliefs are inherently malicious toward certain groups even if they might come from a place of good intention in other ways. If someone wants to combat racism and mistakenly thinks that calling people out for honest mistakes on Twitter is a good way to do it, they're misguided but well-meaning.

On the other hand, if someone wants to criminalize homosexuality and send LGBT people to prison, their entire goal is malicious. They may perceive some religious or social benefit based on misconceptions and falsehoods, but they would still be doing significant harm to an entire group based on that.

Of course, there are misguided and malicious people on the left as well. As I said, this is the case for any group, but overall, I think it's essential to recognize that right-wing beliefs are generally more dangerous at this time. Why is this informative when discussing left-wing politics? Because I don't think we can discuss an ideology in isolation of its larger cultural, political, and social context, as I mentioned earlier.

Solutions? We can't even agree there is a problem...lol.

At a simplistic and personal level, I am trying to steelman nuanced arguments from the right, and seek out alternative views to at least hold progressive views to account.
And realise that many people calling out 'bad behaviour' are spending much more time on their Tweets than they are actually studying the issues they are freely spouting off about.

Discussions like this...between you and me...are a better path.

Basically we just need more people like us, and less of 'them'. Totally not a binary and self-serving position at all!!!

I agree there's a problem. Where we seem to disagree is on the scale thereof. I just don't think it's as huge of an issue as some people argue it is, and perhaps this is also partially due to my own background as well as living in a third-world country where conservatism dominates society, state law, and culture. I see how much harm it causes here and think to myself, "Just how bad are Twitter call-outs compared to this?" or, "Even if those Twitter leftists miraculously came to power, would they be as bad as this?"

I could be wrong, and I have changed my views a lot over the years, so I'm sure that will happen again in one way or another. But you can see further into why I have the views that I do on this specific issue.

And yes, there's a reason I avoid Twitter and social media in general. They replace nuance with fishing for reactions and approval, replace detailed and reasoned arguments with flashy but insubstantial soundbites, and replace empathetic, reasonable admonition or even strong but valid criticism with malice and public shaming.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I suspect we're largely in agreement on these points. Personally, I'm concerned about extremism in general, both from the right and from the left.

It might seem that the right is doing more damage than the left, but there are bad side-effects being caused by the extreme left. For example, last week it was like shooting fish in a barrel for Sarah H Sanders to do some effective fear mongering concerning the extreme left.

Zooming out - which I'm a huge fan of - I grow alarmed whenever I see dogma gaining traction. I grow alarmed whenever I see pushes to chip away at free speech.

"It might seem" strikes me as a huge understatement. It doesn't seem that way to me; I think the right is doing significantly more damage than the left.

I can't really comment on your concern about perceived pushes to chip away at free speech without knowing precisely what you consider to be free speech. The example of misgendering is a good one: many would consider it an attack on "free speech" to include misgendering as an inappropriate workplace behavior per a professional code of conduct. I consider doing so to be a positive thing and merely in line with the standards of basic respect shown toward other groups.

If someone called me (a cis guy) "she" at work, I would object, and they would almost surely be reprimanded. I don't see why trans people should be treated any differently.

I think we oughtn't conflate private platforms with public ones, this is tricky enough as it is

As for the misgendering of students, man I think this is tricky business. It really starts to skirt compelled speech and THAT is a path to societal destruction!

As for communists, I think we have to make do with the free speech laws we have. If we start thinking we can somehow censor some economic systems, again, that's a very dangerous slippery slope.

I don't see pushback against misgendering as any more "compelled speech" than what most workplaces already do, where, as I said, people misgendering a cis person would most likely get in trouble for doing so. This is especially true for people who come from cultures that emphasize being "manly": referring to a man as "she" wouldn't just result in reprimand at work; it could result in physical conflict if the person doing the misgendering pushed hard enough.

I wouldn't personally go that far if someone misgendered me, but this is just an example to illustrate why I don't think the situation with misgendering trans people is remotely unique or a form of compelled speech.

I agree censoring economic systems is pointless and dangerous, although I support hate speech laws that entail censoring certain ideologies, such as neo-Nazism.

Interesting dilemma. Religious fundamentalists across many popular faiths believe that the LGBTQ+ are abominations. Islamists are one such example, but when I criticize their intolerance, I'm often labeled "Islamophobic".

One of my main problems with the left is the oversensitivity toward the slightest hint of criticism of Islam, even when it comes from ex-Muslims who have lived in Islamic societies. That said, if a conservative Muslim openly called LGBT people "abominations" at a university in the US or Europe, do you think they would get away with it and wouldn't face pushback either from faculty staff or other students?

 

[icehorse]

"It might seem" strikes me as a huge understatement. It doesn't seem that way to me; I think the right is doing significantly more damage than the left.

You're probably correct. That said, I think we have to dogmatically expose dogma, regardless of the source.

I can't really comment on your concern about perceived pushes to chip away at free speech without knowing precisely what you consider to be free speech. The example of misgendering is a good one: many would consider it an attack on "free speech" to include misgendering as an inappropriate workplace behavior per a professional code of conduct. I consider doing so to be a positive thing and merely in line with the standards of basic respect shown toward other groups.

If someone called me (a cis guy) "she" at work, I would object, and they would almost surely be reprimanded. I don't see why trans people should be treated any differently.

In the US, the laws and limitations concerning free speech have been mostly stable for a long time. Changes have been mostly minor or highly specialized. I'm of the opinion that any proposals to large changes to free speech law ought to come under rigorous scrutiny.

As for misgendering, wow, what a tricky topic! There are all sorts of variations, I've heard numbers like 81 variations? I'm sure that some of these variations are "healthy", but it would be a staggering claim to say that they all are. There are countless psychological disorders that are acknowledged AND TREATED by the scientific / healthcare community.

I agree censoring economic systems is pointless and dangerous, although I support hate speech laws that entail censoring certain ideologies, such as neo-Nazism.

We might have to agree to disagree on the idea of censoring hate speech. How would we define "hate speech"? Of course there are obvious examples, but there are also tricky, slippery-slope examples, and those can get us right back to chipping away at our current free speech laws. I favor open, debate as the remedy for horrific ideas like Nazism.

 

[Yerda]

Frankly, yes, but I'd also like to apologise for the lack of effort and context in my response. It wasn't supposed to sound like I was having a go at you personally, but at the same time it would be hard to look at it in any other way so let me try and explain.

No worries. I appreciate the response.

But the article I linked to has some evidence and discussion on the types of thing I am talking about.

I'll have a look at the article.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Can you summarize these hate speech laws? I often find hate speech laws to be dangerously subjective and/or slanted.

I actually think it's tangential and possibly even unconstructive to this topic, since it's a separate topic all of its own.
Without defending them, the law I mentioned where I lived is as follows;

The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.

And more specifically around Nazi symbology...

https://www.vic.gov.au/fact-sheet-nazi-symbol-prohibition

 

[lewisnotmiller]

1) I think white supremacists do require decisions that react to them when they become big enough of a problem, and they are a significant problem in the US and parts of Europe.

We are just talking past each other a touch on this. I'm not suggesting we ignore white supremacy. What I'm suggesting is that in responding to white supremacy, I'm going to be as rational, detached, and objective as possible.

I won't (as a stupidly simple example) throw white supremacists in gaol and throw away the key no matter my visceral reaction, because I think it's important we adhere to evidentiary standards, natural justice, etc.
A slightly more cogent example...if white supremacists argue against racial quotas in government, that won't cause me to argue for them. I will ignore them as best I can, and make as rational, and objective a call on this, considering my worldview and experience.

Long story short, I'm not ignoring white supremacy, but robbing white supremacists of the ability to have an outsized impact on my decision making.

I think such things are almost invariably best considered on a case-by-case basis, so I try to accommodate that in my wording by saying "almost," "arguably," etc. I can't make an absolute statement... except this one stating that I can't make an absolute statement. (Sorry, I had to.)

Heh...I get it. To some extent it's what I mean by 'everything is grey'. Context matters. It's important we have consistent overarching principals to help guide us, but for any specific situation there is also nuance and context.

As for a couple of examples where an issue is black and white (or as close as it could possibly get):

1) The genocide of Uyghurs in China.

Well...genocide is unequivocally bad, and I don't mean there aren't clear macro statements to be made about such things. Genocide, bad. Racism, bad. Sexism, bad. LA Lakers, bad.

But there are kernels at a micro level. For example, what rights does a government have to take actions which improve the security of the general population, at the cost of individual right? Some might say carte blanche rights to do anything. Some might say no rights at all. But the vast majority...myself included...would be somewhere between those poles.

It's worth remembering (in my opinion) and explicitly calling this out. Too often now we see ourselves as binary opposites, when we are different plot points on a spectrum. There is a value and a commonality in that. I'm no longer trying to convince my 'enemy' that governments should be able to take internal security actions when they think they shouldn't. We are working through when...how to mitigate against the obvious cost and downside of this...how to prevent this level of power being used for nefarious purposes...etc.

2) Advocates of banning interracial marriage versus those who identify such a ban as racist, dehumanizing, and utterly outdated.

To be clear, I was an extremely strong and unequivocal advocate for marriage equality here, which I'd see as a more recent (and therefore perhaps more controversial) version of the same basic argument. My overarching principles guiding this are as follows;

1. People shouldn't have differentiated rights based on race, religion or sexuality. Even allowing that they do in practice, this is an important guiding principle for legislation.

2. When deciding on legislation, I shouldn't be determine it based on what I would do, what is right for me, or my personal preferences.

So, in this case, I'm not gay, would never be in a gay relationship, and would not utilise gay marriage.
I have been in an interracial relationship previously (to tie it back to your example), and whilst unlikely to happen again, it's theoretically possible.

My passion for allowing interracial marriage and gay marriage are equal because of what I outlined in point 1, rather than the level of personal impact.

The 'Why do you care?' position I heard from some is weird, to my mind.

However, again at a micro level there are considerations within the opposing side of the argument that aren't based on racism/sexism...or at least not deliberately or subjectively in the minds of the opposers.

An example of this would be around what impact a law about marriage equality has for access. Is the Catholic Church now required to marry gay couples? If so, why? If not, do we suggest that the right to marriage and access to marriage services are different issues?

All issues have nuance beneath the surface, and people might be surprised that they'll sometimes agree with their opponents on particular aspects of an issue, even whilst vehemently being opposed on others.

I intentionally avoided pulling a Godwin and mentioning anything about Nazi Germany, because I'd rather focus on current examples.

Sort of a shame. Pre-War Germany is pretty fascinating, and the Nazis are a great example of completely evil at a macro level, but having levels of nuance beneath that. Tiny little hints, perhaps, but still...
The funny thing is they're a good example of how to cancel a discussion on a casual level, so agree staying away is best. We touched loosely on this the other day when you mentioned a dumb comment Richard Dawkins made...lol

I agree that it's unreasonable to try to get the game banned or imply that anyone who buys it is transphobic. However, how common are people who hold such positions? As a rough percentage of the left, are they in any way enough to constitute a trend or larger social movement?

It's a good point, and my main issue with my own position. I will answer like this, but also readily admit this is entirely subjective...

It's not the left per se I'm blaming for this. If pressed, I'd call myself left, and I don't fall into this groupthink category. It's also clearly not just the left who partake in this, and the right have a clear history of doing it.

What I'm worried about is the way these discussions are now framed. They have become increasingly binary. We move too quickly from a discussion about trans rights (valuable) to deciding that 15 year old kids who buy a game are transphobes (oh let me count the ways THAT is a position of privilege and myopic self indulgence) or...and this is the kicker for me...that trans activists are self-indulgent and myopic fools.

That last is a somewhat natural human reaction to idiocy, but trans activism ISN'T idiocy, and IS required.
But for every valuable, nuanced and educational step taken towards true reform we get ten of these simplistic and binary yelling matches about nothing.
Just try and have a sensible conversation about trans athletes...lol.

There have always been fringes within all groups. Where I think they warrant strong scrutiny is when they have enough influence or numbers to drastically change the course of the larger movement (i.e., liberalism) or society that they're a part of.

Completely agree. I'm not saying we are in that position. I'm suggesting we are trending the wrong way.

It's not uniquely American....
[Snipped for length]

No, it's not uniquely American, but American cultural impact, the higher degree of political and religious polarisation, and the freedom to have these discussions are more clearly expressed in America than anywhere else I would guess.

Ultimately I think of it as a first world problem (ie. It only exists where basic needs are met) and it's timeless. Cancel culture in a broad sense absolutely existed in Ancient Rome, for example. Again, I just think we're trending the wrong way on this.

Incidentally, a discussion like this would make little sense in Papua New Guinea, despite massive swathes of the population being without a voice (women, for example). No need to talk about over simplification of discussions when the country is still grappling with the macro level. 'Domestic Violence is bad' is more than enough to wrestle with there. Once that's clearly established you can have more nuanced conversations like 'should unproven accusations have people lose their careers'. That's a country that kills hundreds per year based on accusations of witchcraft...

I think that on average, progressives are indeed far more likely than conservatives to have "good beliefs" and a common sense more aligned with evidence. I can't look at a progressive who supports LGBT rights and religious freedom and put their worldview in a similar category as a conservative who opposes both or wants them heavily restricted by state law. The same goes for a progressive who followed preventive measures during the pandemic and a conservative who denied that there was even a contagious disease or one who propagated conspiracy theories about vaccines.

Sure. But these are outlier positions, and you're somewhat making my point for me. We deal with black and white, and pretend things are binary.
What do you think about the throttling or blacklisting of accounts by Twitter such as Dr Jay Bhattacharya's?

I agree there's a problem. Where we seem to disagree is on the scale thereof. I just don't think it's as huge of an issue as some people argue it is, and perhaps this is also partially due to my own background as well as living in a third-world country where conservatism dominates society, state law, and culture. I see how much harm it causes here and think to myself, "Just how bad are Twitter call-outs compared to this?" or, "Even if those Twitter leftists miraculously came to power, would they be as bad as this?"

If I had a choice between a conservative theocracy and a bunch of leftist idealogues, sign me up to the lefties.
I would also agree that this is more of 'a problem' if you're already living in a liberal democracy.
And I think the right are largely...erm...people I don't trust to engage in honest and nuanced dialogue, let's say.
So we largely agree.

I just think the left is trending the wrong way on the 'honest and nuanced dialogue' front.
For all that I disagree with much of Nietzsche, I always found him challenging, and I try to keep in mind that we need to guard against becoming that which we reject through reactionism.

I could be wrong, and I have changed my views a lot over the years, so I'm sure that will happen again in one way or another. But you can see further into why I have the views that I do on this specific issue.

And yes, there's a reason I avoid Twitter and social media in general. They replace nuance with fishing for reactions and approval, replace detailed and reasoned arguments with flashy but insubstantial soundbites, and replace empathetic, reasonable admonition or even strong but valid criticism with malice and public shaming.

Another thing we agree on!!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We might have to agree to disagree on the idea of censoring hate speech. How would we define "hate speech"? Of course there are obvious examples, but there are also tricky, slippery-slope examples, and those can get us right back to chipping away at our current free speech laws. I favor open, debate as the remedy for horrific ideas like Nazism.

Where is this slippery slope where these laws enacted?

 

[icehorse]

Where is this slippery slope where these laws enacted?

Just go back through history and look at how totalitarian regimes slowly locked down on free speech.

I think it's important to zoom WAY out thru the course of history to see how exceedingly rare free speech societies have been, and how fragile.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just go back through history and look at how totalitarian regimes slowly locked down on free speech.

I think it's important to zoom WAY out thru the course of history to see how exceedingly rare free speech societies have been, and how fragile.

That's not happening in those places. In fact, many are doing better at democracy than what America currently is.