SOCIAL JUSTICE

Discussion in 'Politics and Society' started by RJM Corbet, Oct 13, 2020.

  1. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    “… critical social justice theory understands society … as a series of ideologically loaded systems that are designed to preserve the power of certain groups over others. These systems are so comprehensive and dominant that we cannot help but be “socialised” into them, and ultimately “internalise” them. That makes them invisible to us, seeming true and natural rather than mere constructions. The result is that everything – the language we use, our sense of morality, even what counts as knowledge – is really just the subjectivity of privileged groups. Those with privilege go through life with the wind at their backs, safe in the knowledge that cultural assumptions suit them.”

    “… white privilege, male privilege, cis-privilege, hetero privilege and able-bodied privilege … thin privilege … fatphobia …In practice, though, some kinds of privilege end up being emphasised over others. Because critical social justice theory understands the world as “systems of meaning” it tends to view the world in highly symbolic terms. It instinctively views all inequalities as the product of identity-based oppression.

    … This makes wokeness less attentive to the privilege of class and education than you might expect. It wants to be inclusive, but doesn’t reckon with, for example, the way its policing of language is silencing, especially of those without tertiary education. It is more likely to police the working class’s language than rage over its struggles …

    Wokeness tends to overlook certain privileges its adherents enjoy. A Pew Research study found predictably that Twitter users are younger, wealthier, more left-leaning and better educated than the broader population. Their disproportionate wokeness is a luxury of those who win out of the knowledge economy.

    Whichever privilege you’re talking about, critical social justice theory demands it be dismantled to liberate the oppressed. It is a view that effectively separates all speech and action into one of two categories. They either perpetuate power, privilege and oppression, or resist it. “[T]here is no such thing as a not-racist idea, only racist ideas and antiracist ideas,” writes Kendi. Whatever isn’t resistance is therefore “complicit” in perpetuating oppression. In this vision, there is no such thing as neutrality. There is no right to silence, no right to reserve one’s opinion, no right to abstain. The binary is total.”
     
  2. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    “…It provides some useful tools … But it is such a monstrous overcorrection, its conception of power and oppression so large, its aim of deconstruction so complete, that it careers headlong into absolutism. In casting everything as either liberation or oppression, it has no ethical choice but to call out on every front at all times. That is exactly what cancel culture does, and why it is apt to seize on what many might see as small and historic transgressions. And … it proceeds as though there is no possibility of it being wrong.”

    “…This … amounts to “a profoundly religious movement in everything but terminology”. Privilege becomes its original sin. Absolution cannot be obtained except by confession, in this case a public acknowledgement of one’s privilege. Statements that violate its orthodoxy – which are problematic – equate to blasphemy. Cancellation is a form of excommunication. We might extend the analogy to observe that it has its scripture, its high priests, and even its inquisitors who offer the possibility of leniency to those who publicly denounce themselves. Self-denunciation doesn’t always work, mind you … cancel culture is littered with those … but what matters most is the act of submission.

    The ubiquity of the buzzwords, the uniformity of the vocabulary indicates a fealty to the tenets of the subculture. These apologies read as though they have been written by a single authority, to be signed by the confessor. Confession and apology are central because they help articulate and reinforce the new orthodoxy ... They put confessors in a bond with their own words so they cannot retreat without multiplying their sin ...

    Cancel culture is trying to enforce a moral conclusion without trusting the audience to do the hard work of arriving at that conclusion for themselves ... It’s the moralism you get in the absence of real moral philosophy."
     
  3. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    There was a lot of " " there, but I'm assuming that those were all quotes?

    I think that there is a lot of fair criticism to direct at any ideology, but this thread and you @RJM Corbet seem to conflate a lot of concepts like 'social justice', 'wokeness' and 'cancel culture' and then put them opposite to 'normal', 'common' and 'neutral'. I love these topics and spend evenings with friends picking social systems apart, but there isn't anything like that going on here, just "woke people are the bad guys". That's why I don't share my cents.
     
  4. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Yes I pulled out a few quotes from the article, because it's long and most people won't read the whole thing. The elipses (...) represent bits left out from the main text. However, the pdf complete article is linked in my earlier and repeated here if anyone wants to read it? I hope one of the links work, because the original article in from a subscriber locked publication:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ExxuLg43fdAnVeBYMpKvgLLUHtA9dz6A/view?usp=sharing


    https://docs.google.com/document/d/...KbAIexvrzCL9p3ni4Ssi6Yo3W596peXEOoN7X79wt/pub

    My woke, gay, art lecturer brother at Sydney University in Australia sent it to me, because he accepts the cancel culture problem. Fortunately he does not consider himself intellectually superior to me.

    What worries me is the deafening silence of woke voices willing to speak out against cancel culture, because they risk being cancelled themselves by doing so, and the article goes a way to explaining that. I learned a lot from it. But as most people will not read it all, below is my own summary of the main points: yes, they are all quotes from the article:

    “… cancel culture … responds to an accusation with a counter accusation … rather than engage the charge of censoriousness before it.

    To criticise the right for this behaviour but justify it for progressive causes … says there is nothing inherently wrong with this approach so long as the good guys are using it … is a politics in which ends justify means, and means have no independent ethical standing. As we shall see, cancel culture adopts that nihilism wholeheartedly, not reluctantly…

    “The case of J.K. Rowling is a good illustration. She is unabashedly a political progressive. Her transgender rhetoric may be acerbic, but the politics are feminist, not conservative. It belongs broadly in the gender critical school of feminism that sees women’s oppression as anchored in the female body itself, the cultural assumptions that surround it, and how it is “vulnerable in specific ways to sexual violence, such as pregnancy from rape”, as Susanna Rustin put it in The Guardian.

    This goes back to Simone de Beauvoir, and stands in opposition to the later queer feminism of Judith Butler, which substitutes gender identity – the subjective feeling of being male, female or something in between – for the biology of being female. The attempts to cancel J.K. Rowling are therefore attempts to cancel a particular version of feminism and declare it invalid. The aim is to expel Rowling from the progressive fold in order to set the meanings of progressivism …”

    “I don’t think cancel culture can adequately be understood as some mass act of bad-faith intimidation. Rather, cancel culture is the story of a young, socially conscious generation trying desperately to remedy the injustices they see, but having been left with wholly inadequate tools for the job …

    “Cancel culture … comes from a generation that has inherited the world liberals helped transform, without experiencing the revolution that delivered it. That generation is therefore more likely to take these cosmopolitan norms as natural and given, and instead see the ways in which they are not fully realised. In fact, cancel culture can only be understood in the context of a generation that sees profound systemic failure … If you consider mainstream politics from a millennial vantage point, the failures look thoroughgoing …

    “ If liberalism is about freedom, cancel culture is about power. The deeper you look at it, the less it is about anything else. This makes perfect sense for two reasons. First, it is natural that a movement that seeks to transcend the limits of liberalism ends up being consumed with liberalism’s most serious blind spot. But secondly, it emerges from African-American online culture as a recognisable extension of civil rights and black empowerment traditions. Let us consider that evolution.

    The idea of being “cancelled” springs from Black Twitter, initially as a joke, then quickly as a way of expressing disapproval of celebrities who have said or done something offensive … “the attitudes within a community which call for or bring about the withdrawal of support from a public figure, such as cancellation of an acting role, a ban on playing an artist’s music, removal from social media etc, usually in response to an accusation of a socially unacceptable action or comment by the figure”.

    This … is “a survival skill as old as the Southern black use of the boycott”. It is a power move of the disempowered … “If you don’t have the ability to stop something through political means, what you can do is refuse to participate … Cancelling is a way to acknowledge that you don’t have to have the power to change structural inequalities.

    These roots help explain why cancel culture retains a focus on racism, and more broadly why it is so inextricably linked with “woke” politics. “Woke”, like “cancel”, also emerges from black American culture. Indeed, “woke” has the longer pedigree, having been part of the black vernacular since at least the 1960s.

    But it took off in contemporary online culture in about 2012, after George Zimmerman’s killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin and his subsequent acquittal for murder. This galvanised the Black Lives Matter movement, and the hashtag #staywoke began to multiply in that context.

    But like all things online, both cancellation and wokeness quickly broke these original containment lines. Cancellation evolved from a relatively passive, sometimes temporary boycott, to a more aggressive dynamic that spread into the lives and workplaces of non-celebrities, and into institutions such as universities.

    Wokeness evolved to represent a melange of political positions. Racism remains a core focus, but the term now covers a series of commitments on sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism and fatphobia as well.

    Power is the only concept that ties these things together. Woke politics identifies no ontological essence that unites racial minorities with women and LGBTIQ people … For instance, it holds that race and gender are so essentially different, so thoroughly incomparable that identifying as transgender is to be respected, but identifying as transracial … is emphatically not.


    Rather, these groups are united in their disempowerment, their experience of oppression … so, a black woman is disempowered in a way a white woman or a black man is not – but always the focus is on who has power and who doesn’t.

    That is true even within a single group. So, woke politics celebrates sex workers as entrepreneurs unashamed of their sexuality and entitled to profit from it, but decries the institution of Formula One “grid girls”, whose workers make the same claims. Woke politics supports women’s choices in one case, but not the other … sex workers are a disempowered, stigmatised and abused group, while grid girls are not regarded as one … woke politics is mostly interested in marshalling these to side with whomever it deems is on the wrong end of power relations; whomever is oppressed.”

    “… In this world view, no act or comment is too small to be considered part of a system of oppression. Asking a non-white person in a predominantly white country where they are from is a “microaggression” that perpetuates the system of “white supremacy”. Indeed, Kendi goes further and calls microaggressions “abuse” because he pointedly refuses to consider them minor. But when things are heightened in this way, any criteria for distinguishing different levels of persecution begin to disappear from view. When nearly everything can be found problematic, when labels like “white supremacist” can be hurled at most social behaviour and people, they flatten out the very idea of oppression.”

    “… critical social justice theory understands society … as a series of ideologically loaded systems that are designed to preserve the power of certain groups over others. These systems are so comprehensive and dominant that we cannot help but be “socialised” into them, and ultimately “internalise” them. That makes them invisible to us, seeming true and natural rather than mere constructions. The result is that everything – the language we use, our sense of morality, even what counts as knowledge – is really just the subjectivity of privileged groups. Those with privilege go through life with the wind at their backs, safe in the knowledge that cultural assumptions suit them.”

    “… white privilege, male privilege, cis-privilege, hetero privilege and able-bodied privilege … thin privilege … fatphobia …In practice, though, some kinds of privilege end up being emphasised over others. Because critical social justice theory understands the world as “systems of meaning” it tends to view the world in highly symbolic terms. It instinctively views all inequalities as the product of identity-based oppression.

    … This makes wokeness less attentive to the privilege of class and education than you might expect. It wants to be inclusive, but doesn’t reckon with, for example, the way its policing of language is silencing, especially of those without tertiary education. It is more likely to police the working class’s language than rage over its struggles …

    Wokeness tends to overlook certain privileges its adherents enjoy. A Pew Research study found predictably that Twitter users are younger, wealthier, more left-leaning and better educated than the broader population. Their disproportionate wokeness is a luxury of those who win out of the knowledge economy.

    Whichever privilege you’re talking about, critical social justice theory demands it be dismantled to liberate the oppressed. It is a view that effectively separates all speech and action into one of two categories. They either perpetuate power, privilege and oppression, or resist it. “[T]here is no such thing as a not-racist idea, only racist ideas and antiracist ideas,” writes Kendi. Whatever isn’t resistance is therefore “complicit” in perpetuating oppression. In this vision, there is no such thing as neutrality. There is no right to silence, no right to reserve one’s opinion, no right to abstain. The binary is total.”

    “…It provides some useful tools … But it is such a monstrous overcorrection, its conception of power and oppression so large, its aim of deconstruction so complete, that it careers headlong into absolutism. In casting everything as either liberation or oppression, it has no ethical choice but to call out on every front at all times. That is exactly what cancel culture does, and why it is apt to seize on what many might see as small and historic transgressions. And … it proceeds as though there is no possibility of it being wrong.”

    “…This … amounts to “a profoundly religious movement in everything but terminology”. Privilege becomes its original sin. Absolution cannot be obtained except by confession, in this case a public acknowledgement of one’s privilege. Statements that violate its orthodoxy – which are problematic – equate to blasphemy. Cancellation is a form of excommunication. We might extend the analogy to observe that it has its scripture, its high priests, and even its inquisitors who offer the possibility of leniency to those who publicly denounce themselves. Self-denunciation doesn’t always work, mind you … cancel culture is littered with those … but what matters most is the act of submission.

    The ubiquity of the buzzwords, the uniformity of the vocabulary indicates a fealty to the tenets of the subculture. These apologies read as though they have been written by a single authority, to be signed by the confessor. Confession and apology are central because they help articulate and reinforce the new orthodoxy ... They put confessors in a bond with their own words so they cannot retreat without multiplying their sin ...

    Cancel culture is trying to enforce a moral conclusion without trusting the audience to do the hard work of arriving at that conclusion for themselves ... It’s the moralism you get in the absence of real moral philosophy."

    “… it’s also how the hive mind that incubates in every radical subculture works. As devotees gather, they seek to demonstrate their piety, and the simplest way to do that is to express ever “purer” political convictions. To question the limits, to declare something too woke, is to risk being declared un-woke. Over time, a process of ideological outbidding occurs, which gradually pushes the movement’s centre of gravity to more extreme positions.

    Critical social justice theory ultimately does not believe in persuasion … the liberal idea that “good” ideas drive out “bad” ones is rejected as an “empathy fallacy”. Any exchange of ideas is regarded as unequal because … power dynamics … dismiss marginalised voices while amplifying and believing privileged ones. The audience, therefore, cannot be trusted to empathise sufficiently with the oppressed in order to weigh any alternative narratives fairly … the whole liberal conception of a “marketplace of ideas”, with “open debate” and “civil discourse”, is simply part of the system of oppression … The marketplace is … “colonised”.

    This is a closed loop. Woke politics can only accept civil discourse when it is “decolonised”. But such dominant social systems become invisible even to people from disempowered groups, who thereby internalise their own inferiority and buy into their own oppression …

    Liberals rail against this because it is intolerant by design, but their objections and calls for “tolerance” fall on deaf ears because they miss the fundamental point: cancel culture is not interested in tolerance. It is interested in liberation.

    Is the above representation too austere? An alternative account might say cancel culture is not paradigmatically hostile to civil discourse, but is simply trying to open it to those who are excluded. This makes it a kind of “momentum politics”, in which its absolutism is necessary to rectify deep, systemic, historic injustices quickly. Once rectified, that absolutism can be relaxed for a more civil approach. That account may be sincere, but it has no practical meaning: the “right time” to relax never arrives because there’s no realisable end-goal here… the very idea of civil debate is deemed part of the oppressive system … people who object to the sometimes abusive tenor of online debates are often deemed guilty of “tone policing”. Norms of decorum or politeness become recast as tactics of oppression that silence the oppressed by delegitimising their anger.”

    “…liberalism is a political theory of state non-interference in which the only valid reason for government to limit people’s freedom is where they exercise it to harm another.

    It is not a moral philosophy that requires us to believe that harm or discrimination are the only criteria for deeming something immoral. Yet, over time, we have come to treat liberalism as a philosophy of public morality too … but thick notions of virtue and vice are outside our public vocabulary.

    Wokeness wants to remoralise politics, but it has two problems. First, it emerges from liberal societies that only have a limited moral consensus on which to draw, and even if a workable consensus did exist, wokeness would immediately go about deconstructing it as a system of power.

    Second, woke morality, though absolutist, is itself entirely political. It makes all politics morally loaded, but it also has no morality that isn’t reduced to politics …”

    “…If all conduct is either resistance or oppression, then all conduct is ultimately either liberating or harmful. Once you accept this, there is no need to demonstrate harm. It can be derived entirely theoretically, and then asserted as an unfalsifiable fact. To deny it is to participate in the system of oppression … in cancel culture “harm” is intended as a full stop that terminates rather than facilitates the discussion.

    This makes “harm” an enormously promiscuous concept. Rendered this broad and decisive, just about anyone can deploy it to censure (and censor) just about anything … If every ideology tried to adopt this, the only possible outcome would be everyone trying to censor everyone else …

    “… cancel culture devolves into .., “meta-argument allegations”, which foreclose debates on grounds of harm and safety rather than truth. That is easy enough when “truth” itself is deemed a power-based construction. The result .. is that instead of “an argument being about a serious moral issue, the argument becomes a serious moral issue”. That radically shuts down the possibility of good-faith deliberation. Cancel culture becomes a “messaging culture” …This is why any criticism of cancel culture is quickly dismissed as the privileged seeking to maintain their power …

    … The mistrust inherent in messaging culture becomes pernicious when the theatres for these exchanges are online, and when cancellation happens via the rapid swarm of, say, a Twitter pile-on … The more you are immersed in one subculture, the less need there is to play by the rules of another. You earn kudos by demonstrating your commitment to your own audience, not considered engagement with another … It’s visible in all manner of online phenomena from “stan culture” to the growth of extreme political discourses within Islamism or on the far-right. Civic space cannot survive this culture of mutual contempt.

    But … while cancel culture contributes to this, it is not the main driver of it … Cancel culture is merely the latest entrant into the fray … where the most successful ideologies seem to be those that bludgeon rather than cajole their way into public reckoning. It inherits a public discourse already in decay. If I am right that cancel culture regards civic space as a privilege-preserving theatre of violence, I must also acknowledge the state of civic disrepair that makes this seem reasonable to so many. That is why I can believe many of its defenders are motivated by a sincere, well-meaning desire for justice.

    Talk seriously (offline) to someone sympathetic to cancel culture, and eventually you will get the response: “What else are we supposed to do?” …

    … When the mainstream institutions that guide our public conversation devolve into such brutal cynicism, we can expect those disenfranchised by it to do the same. Indeed, we can expect them to be unable to imagine any other way, and to be attracted to an ideology that licenses it.

    Cancel culture may be civically nihilistic, but it reflects a nihilism already well established in our public culture. It reflects a broader, growing inability to imagine a common future together with those who differ from us, rather than a future in which our foes are simply vanquished. That this now sounds quaint, even naive, underscores the problem. Yes, I’m worried about cancel culture. But what worries me most is the thought it is just the younger, more digital reflection of what’s left of our society.”
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2020
  5. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Back to the OP:

     
  6. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    "... Liberals rail against this because it is intolerant by design, but their objections and calls for “tolerance” fall on deaf ears because they miss the fundamental point: cancel culture is not interested in tolerance. It is interested in liberation ..."

    So, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter; the end justifies the means, and 'collaborators' have to be made an example of?
     
  7. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    Why would he!?
    Well, what did you call ContraPoints, an extremist? did and 1:40 long video on how it's a really stupid it can get and how it works. I'm sure she had a lot of reactions from that but the dislike on the video is a fraction of the likes.

    EDIT: called Canceling, posted in January
     
  8. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Can you post it here? Or did I miss it ACOT? If so I apologise. If ContraPoints speaks out publicly against cancel culture, it will draw me closer.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2020
  9. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    From:
    https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19440/page-4
    etc...

    I'm sorry, but when Joe Rogan needs to be silenced, or where the You Tube algorithm needs adjusting to exclude him, there's a very big cancel culture problem imo

    EDIT
    I think Joe Rogan is where this debate began? I was absolutely shocked that anyone should think Joe Rogan a voice for the alt-right, and condone censorship against him.

    It knocked me over backwards -- how extreme the cancel culture has become, to be directed against Joe Rogan for even talking to people like Jordan Peterson -- and the debate escalated from there?
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2020
  10. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    Here you go, I haven't seen it recently so it isn't fresh in my head.


    So if I'm going down this I should clarify my own view of the ideological spectrum I occupy. The idea that "we" are an ideology of tolerance is really widespread and I'm guessing it has to to that we are made up of and are inclusive of groups of people who other ideologies are less tolerant of. But ideologies, as I see them, have values and every ideology is intolerant of anything that is a threat to those values.

    Ideologies have to contend with free speech and there will almost always be a limit. We try to be inclusive on this forum, but we have limits, clearly stated in the code of conduct. Our little piece of the ideological spectrum has a wide range of ideas of how to promote thought that is inherently damaging to what we are trying to accomplish. Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson are what we call "very problematic", we love that expression. I think very few would call for cancelling Rogan, he's mostly seen as very irresponsible and we make a lot of noise about it because it's what we can/should(?) do. I think that Peterson is different because his platform is different. He has his own smaller channels like his books, but it's the fact that he seeks out universities where he (I) occupy the safe space of students (II) the students can be load about it (III) the board can choose either position and often choose to not have him speak. I'm not arguing the case with you, just clarifying the difference between the two and how we reason around it.

    And again, no, it doesn't mean that they should be silenced, I haven't ever called anyone to be silenced, and I don't think I would silence those two or Rowling if I was in a position to decide. But I wouldn't let them get away with some statements unopposed either. Just as Rogan can and have called some of his guessed on their BS.
     
  11. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Thanks. I will watch the video.

    What do you mean? Do you mean they have the right to speak -- unless what they say is against the law: hate speech or encitement to violence, etc -- and that you have a right to answer?

    Or do you mean some people should not be allowed to say certain things because woke disagrees with what they say --not just at universities, but not being allowed to speak anywhere at all?
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2020
  12. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Woke might not like Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson -- or JK Rowling -- but there's a LOT of other people do. What gives woke the right to decide not only what everybody else should be forbidden to say or to think -- but what they are required to say and to think? Surely you recognise the blind spot?

    EDIT
    Coming from the authoritarian right it would hardly raise a shrug -- it would be entirely expected authoritarian behaviour
     
  13. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    That is a clear statement. However please do not expect a pat on the back for it from me.

    Because effectively woke DOES try to silence them? It would silence them if it could find a way. And that needs to be acknowledged, not swept under the carpet. It's not a minor issue? It can't be brushed away by words. It exposes the true totalitarian nature of the whole woke movement? The wolf under the sheep's clothing, imo

    edited ...
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2020
  14. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    The woke movement tried to sabotage Joe Rogan's move to Spotify. They did all they could to prevent it -- all in their power. Although they were unsuccessful, they really tried.

    But Joe Rogan hosts deep podcasts, lasting hours, that fully explore the subject, unlike the soundbites and hasty conclusions and shallow judgements we are used to from everybody else.

    He interviews scientists, conspiracy theorists, Elon Musk, to writers of all different sorts, to explorers of rainforest areas, etc -- and also to people like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro. And this is the problem which the woke movement have with him: not only does he actually speak to those people, but has even been. seen to nod in agreement with some of the things they say.

    Woke can call him irresponsible. I call him the voice of the times and welcome his depth and honesty in the post-truth, fake news we have to live in I shout out for Joe Rogan! Long may Joe run.

    Sorry if not everything he covers fits in with the woke world view. That's rough. So hard. Such pity for them.

    Of course they would gag Rogan if they could. I'm sorry but there's no sugar on the cancel culture pill. It's just disgusting, imo
     
  15. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Latest JR podcast: subject: tech and screen time. Is this the monster the woke people hate so much?



    EDIT
    Finished listening. Great podcast. Two hours well spent, listening while going about my ordinary chores, etc. I learnt a lot from it. JR is a very smart interviewer. He researches the subject and he knows how to get people to open up. The early 21st Century would be a poorer time without Joe Rogan, imo
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2020
  16. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    To repeat the point: The right to freedom of expression does not entitle anyone to demand of society at large not just what people must not say or do, but what they MUST think and say?
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2020
  17. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    Oddly condescending, but ok.

    Since you seem so reluctant to acknowledge and complexity I present and are content to repeat the same mantra over and over again I will once again bow out of the conversation.
     
  18. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Weird. You say you personally would not silence Rogan, Peterson or JKR if you were in a position to decide. Does that earn credit?

    What complexity? It is not correct in a democracy to silence and ruin the lives and careers of those with whom we disagree, unless they speak against the law, in which case the law is there to deal with the problem. It is simply wrong.

    Cancel culture is warped and wrong. That's it. No sugar on it. There's nothing complex about it, imo.

    It is a fact requires acknowledgement, not explanation or indulgence.

    Until the day I die if I need to, until the woke left acknowledge it and respond properly to it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2020
  19. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Why?
    We try to stay reasonably on topic within the remit of a forum. A university is quite different, let alone open society as a whole?
     
  20. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Of course nothing is directed at you personally, and I greatly apologise if it remotely seems that way. Please forgive me. That is never my intention.

    But I AM asking hard questions of you as a voice for the woke university movement whom you seem to volunteer to speak for here?
     

Share This Page