Discussion in 'Community' started by Darth Punk
, Jul 7, 2020.
I'm not angry.
Okay, well, do you want to address my confusion at your weird response to Tina's post?
No. You didn't ask any questions that I can answer. You made a statement. Noted. Then you asked a question, and I don't feel required to clarify or explain this artist's position. I shared an anecdote. I thought this artist had an event cancelled unfairly. What I got back was her opinions classify as hate speech and, given that, cancel tactics are completely acceptable. It seems there's broad agreement about that in the responses. It wasn't what I was expecting, but I accept how people feel about it. That's all I have to say about it.
What exactly were you expecting? That people she's attacking aren't going to take any action against her? That people here would be like "it's okay for her to spend her time attacking the existence of trans people but they should not make any moves against her?"
Also, you can dodge having to respond to commentary about the weirdness in your response to tina, but we all see it and pretending we don't is delusional.
I'm sure if Ken's friend had been receptive to the concerns of those who didn't appreciate her TERF-y message, had sat down to listen to them and been open to becoming an ally instead of an enemy, the result would probably have been different....
In this particular case, she had insisted that she was not "attacking the existence of trans people." And I'm confident she meant that in good faith. So, yes, my initial response was that trans people should not have made any moves against her. However, I now see how and why her opinions were received as a direct attack on trans gender identity. Please forgive me if I'm not using the right term of art here.
In this particular case no. She says that she reached out in an effort to meet with them and listen to their concerns and try to come to an understanding, but no one was interested. Maybe that means her statements were so egregious that rapprochement was impossible. I don't know.
Omg this thread and the trans thread this week, I see blow ups with people on both sides going on the attack, while completely misunderstanding each other.
in this case, I think I am reading Ken correctly, in that:
his friend holds TERF views (sorry Ken, they don’t sound TERFY to me, just TERF
his friend was going to give a talk about art, not TERF views (unless she was planning on sneaking it in there, “now here is a fine example of a neo classical Penis in oil. A REAL penis, might I add!)
Ken is wondering if, because she holds objectionable opinions, should she be shut down on all opinions. I don’t think he thinks she should be.
I am of no opinion, I just prefer less attack, more understanding.
What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?
Unsigned/NDA, Jedi Council Community
My experience with TERFs is that they just aren't in good faith. Look at JK Rowling, for example. She claims several times to be supportive of trans people while critiquing "trans activism" but then in the tweet that started the whole thing, she misgenders a transwoman. You can't claim to be supportive of a group of people while attacking their identity. TERFs, when they're trying to proselytize, try to make it a point to say they're not attacking trans people, but when they're in their own circles, they're as hateful as a social conservative. You may not want to believe the worst of your friend, but the group she's in sucks.
1) Is she being shut down on all opinions? Or is a community of people within the university asking the university not to give her a platform? Are people entitled to platforms?
2) Gonna be honest, kinda tired of the "i have no stake in this i just want kumbayah." Like yeah, you don't have a stake in it, but that doesn't mean others don't.
I would have supported his friend giving a talk about art (in the way Diggy provides) especially in light of Ken saying she reached out.
At the same time, I can’t condemn people from trying to prevent her from speaking—unless it was an actual violation of first amendment rights (this does not appear to be the case, Ken?) Part of what happens when you speak up and take a stand (whether wrong or right) is that you’re going to make waves, ruffle feathers, and, yeah, possibly even make enemies.
opinion: It is both fun and cool to mock TERFs. I understand them just fine. That's why I'm mocking them.
This is exactly my experience with the TERF crowd, as well. The debacle over MWMF is a perfect example - the TERF leadership always acted in bad faith, falsely claimed to be open to some understanding, engaged in constant double talk, had double standards for trans men, always double-crossed trans activists, always proved they could not be trusted. And in the end, the event folded, permanently, because even many young cis women were boycotting and speaking out.
Let's see if I can be constructive.
The online threats are an example of going too far, the people threatening her should have just been content with getting her event cancelled.
Of course not. No one has to join the mob. It's okay to be a friend to her.
She's probably going to have to choose between her controversial opinions and her career. There's no way around it. Voicing those opinions will continue to hurt her career. It won't stop.
I mean, her critique doesn't seem all that serious, even if true. A tiny percentage of the population promoting gender stereotypes is hardly a matter of life and death. Gender stereotypes are so prevalent; even if you put a stop to "trans culture" promoting gender stereotypes, it would only be a drop in the bucket. So is it really worth her career?
It doesn't matter if we endorse it, it's going to happen anyway. Whether she deserves or not, it's going to happen. I know this seems beside the point of a discussion forum, but the reality of the situation you present is beyond us, out of our control.
It seems fairly clear that you have some sort of sympathy for her. That's okay. You don't have to endorse her cancellation. You don't have to be okay with it. You can feel any kind of way you want about it.
What I would do, if she was a friend? I would continue to be her friend. I would not support her views, but I would support her as a person trying to get through a difficult period. If it were me, I'd tell her to let her feminist critique go, and concentrate on her art. She may want to lie low for a while to reflect on how to best put her controversial views behind her and move forward; an apology, a vow to not voice those opinions again, what have you.
Yeeaaah, she's gonna want to lie low and hope this blows over and people forgive her in time. The reality is: no one has to be interested. No one owes her anything. But I think if she steadfastly apologizes and commits to just leaving transgender folks alone, she should be able to get along eventually.
I hope this was helpful and not assuming too much.
I don’t have a stake in it, I don’t know Ken’s friend. It’s simply pointing out I’m neutral regarding this particular instance. I don’t see how being overly aggressive helps anything.
and why don’t you answer your questions.
In actuality, the overwhelming majority of cisgender people accept, adhere to and promote gender stereotypes simply by exercising their cis privilege and presenting in heteronormative fashion. TGNC people represent at most maybe 2-3% of the population.
As long as the majority of the population adheres to the belief that it is natural to groom and present in some specific way due to something that was arbitrarily assigned to you at the moment of your birth, it won't likely change significantly.
PS obviously not criticizing anyone for presenting in a heteronormative fashion if that's the way they sincerely wish to express their gender - but let's not have double standards for TGNC folks that aren't applied to cis people.
Pretty sure this was tongue in cheek.
No, it definitely deserves anger. It’s the JC, all serious, all time.
Well, the issue here is that none of us knows Ken's friend, so really all I can comment on is my experience with terfs in general and specifically. If Ken's friend is somehow different, then sorry, but that's what happens. I don't get why Ken even brought up his friend. Like, the only way to answer is "I don't know" or make an answer based on our own experienced with TERFs. I did the latter, because the former is just a completely unfulfilling discussion.
There is a third option. If you think there are situations where full-throated denunciation isn’t the most appropriate or effective, you could state what the blinds of those circumstances are, or what principles you use to de ide whether a tactic is reasonable. Some people in the thread even started to do so, as with sj with the “friend vs famous author” criterion.
I mean, the person in question is an artist with enough clout to have public speaking events. So this isn't exactly a case of "oh my dumb friend said some stuff and now we don't really hang out with him".
Well and to the people at the university, this is a speaker they are deciding on. Saying no to this person on the grounds that they're a TERF is fine. I would suggest the person who needs to have a heart to heart with this person is someone like Ken, a friend.
Cancelled people should be forced to fight their way back to uncancellation in survival battle arenas.
The first post looked like grief. Maybe he was looking for someone to share his grief and his sympathy for his cancelled friend.
Following posts looked like he was unsure how to feel about it, asking how he should. Perhaps he was conflicted between sympathy for a friend and disapproval of the friend's views, which is a classic supplier of cognitive dissonance. That he didn't want to give out too many details is understandable, even though it severely limited the potential of the discussion.
That's how I read it, anyway. Even if I'm way off, I found it useful.
The issue I have with so called cancel culture is the fact that if you don't 100% agree with a particular viewpoint in every aspect, it is often still considered bigoted and phobic, and thus that individual is worthy of being dismissed and "cancelled" as a result. You can have a totally balanced and fair viewpoint on something that acknowledges and respects the various sides of an issue, but since it isn't completely aligned with certain thinking about that issue, that's not enough for those who typically comprise the cancel mob. To the cancel mob, having a balanced viewpoint on an issue equates more to having the opposite extreme view of that issue than it does in simply not discrediting entirely one side or the other. It's perfectly reasonable to maintain your own beliefs (for lack of a better term) about something, while acknowledging and respecting the beliefs of others and recognizing that people live their lives based on that. But therein lies another aspect of cancel culture that I disagree with. That even if an individual with a fair and balanced viewpoint about an issue can get past being seen as bigoted or phobic, they are still labeled as being uneducated, ignorant, and not understanding about that particular issue. And dismissed as a result. Not agreeing with a particular stance on an issue does not inherently make somebody less educated about that issue. And it's not solely up to those who agree or align themselves with a particular stance on an issue to determine what is the proper level of being educated on that issue and then make the determination on who qualifies as understanding about it and who doesn't. Don't get me wrong, when it comes to outright bigotry, that certainly should not be tolerated. My disagreement lies in the fact that balanced viewpoints are now often equated with being bigoted and ignorant viewpoints, and people don't deserve to be "cancelled" over that. It's a complicated world with complicated viewpoints.