Colin Wright on Cancel Culture

@philokalia said
Wow, Marauder is joining us in this thread -- I would love to hear your opinion specifically on the situation of Colin Wright and cancel culture! Please let us know, Marauder!

(1) In comes the mandatory SPLC compilation of controversial opinions.

[quote]the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Comm ...[text shortened]... ions and how they interact with the public sphere.

WHy don't you tell us what you think of this.

Your takes such show that you agree with such extremist views, not that Facebook, Twitter and the rest are obliged to allow them on their sites.

I'm not terribly interested in going over these points specifically; like the author you seem to equate what Nazis believed to be what the entire German people believed. You also, as an admitted white nationalist and expounder of the "great replacement" can be expected to think that race war to preserve white supremacy isn't a bad idea at all.

Wright seems like a whiner; he did wind up with a nice high paying job didn't he? The endless stories of how white folks are supposedly persecuted in the US are one of the more laughable building blocks of far right extremism in the US.

@no1marauder said
Your takes such show that you agree with such extremist views, not that Facebook, Twitter and the rest are obliged to allow them on their sites.

I'm not terribly interested in going over these points specifically; like the author you seem to equate what Nazis believed to be what the entire German people believed. You also, as an admitted white nationalist and expounder ...[text shortened]... persecuted in the US are one of the more laughable building blocks of far right extremism in the US.

But I am not a "white" nationalist. I believe I have said here before that I am a nationalist, but that is it. ^^ I think a lot of what you have accused me of there is regrettable.

I do understand how the content can be challenging and require a lot of time to go over.

I also think you were not really thinking out what you were postign since one of the things you posted as a negative was really just a quote where the person was saying that this is what German people at that time believed. It can be difficult to mine quotes from the SPLC, though, because they are often unreliable and present things of a questionable nature.

"Far right extremism?" Sure, it exists.

I want nothing to do with anything that promotes violence and everything to do with discussion. But it seems you do not want to discuss these things, but simply fling accusations that stifle discussion and demean my personal character.

Not cool! 😢

@zahlanzi said
What proof do you have that people are "shunned " for expressing minor disagreements. On what do you base that statement.

"for instance, if you don't think that positive discrimination is the most productive way of dealing with an agreed problem."
Who has ever been shunned/tarred and feathered/scolded/whatever for this.

"The obvious consequence is lots of people ...[text shortened]... calling each other trolls or racists or whatever over twitter doesn't mean "robust debate" is dead.

Did you see the letter Rowlings, Chompsky, etc. Published this week?
Did you see the reaction on twitter?

Did you note the reaction by a certain, very vocal minority on Rowlings when she defended transgenderism, but not in the exact narrative the transgender promotion crowd likes?

Did you notice, last year or so, the reaction of the #metoo crowd towards Margaret Atwood (I posted on this issue when it happened) when she stated that the movement’s extremism is bypassing law.
Atwood has always been a feminist and supporter of women’s rights. But what she said didn’t fit the narrative.

This is what is troubling the left (people like me).

And it is a balancing act. I find the clamping down and polarization which is happening because of this, not only counter productive and annoying, but extremely opinion destroying.
But, at the same time, listening to the right on this matter, you hear them up their ante, because they’re being called out and questioned and you hear them using the same line of thought the left has, to legitimize their foul agendas. And so, the extremist reaction by these movements is based in the same reactionary reflex as the right’s. And to a certain point understandable.

The extreme right, by the way, also decries anything which doesn’t fit their agenda as fake, untrustworthy, not researched, etc.

The important point behind it all, I really believe, is that nobody has a right not to be offended.
I’m sick to death of people ignoring intent and especially context.

Even moderation, like on this board, ban words without taking intent and context into consideration.
Serious reporters, reporting on racist issues, will use terms like: “The N-word.”

And that is where the politically correct lose me.
No, you should refer to people as CENSORED. No, you shouldn’t call someone a CENSORED when you are angry.
But if you are discussing the word; in context or reporting on the historical uses of it, there is nothing wrong with saying it.

It’s complete madness!

And yes, I understand the sensitivities. I also comprehend scope-creep, especially when it comes to the alt-right.
However, you don’t have a right not to be offended. And not using a word does not change the mentality of those you oppose.

@philokalia said
But that is a lot to think about it and has made me reflect more about how complicated sexual orientation can be. For it is not easy to say that the behavior parses to a strict correspondence to homosexuality or even heterosexuality as we know it.

I must say that I read this from you and wondered if maybe you were exhibiting some actual growth. This kind of thinking has been regarded as pretty much extremely unlikely to be had by a political conservative, especially these days.

This thinking is the beginning, though. Don't let it die stillborn. Maybe you'll eventually get to the point where you can accept that people can have different orientations than you without being "perverted".

@philokalia said
A very excellent Twitter thread was presented to us by the evolutionary biologist Colin Wright.

It dealt with cancel culture and how it affected him and his career in academia. In another place, he actually tweeted about how cancel culture is not just a thing that affects famous people and is a refelction of what we want to see on our airwaves, but ultimately is someth ...[text shortened]... the pictures necessary to contextualize this:
https://threadreaders.com/thread/1281793002986336256

The whole article is just one guy whining about how people on social media talked to him. He admits it had no effect at all on his job search:

"I should quickly mention that Penn State was not the problem. They never sanctioned me for my essays or tweets. "

Nor did he even allege any prospective employer did anything derogatory to his job search because of social media posts!

So this is about a big of a nothing burger as anything could be imagined except it feeds into the persecution complex of right wingers who, absurdly, think that white folks are getting screwed under our present system.

And Colin kinda left this part out while claiming he was being unfairly pigeonholed merely for citing someone else's work regarding ROGD:

"Two biologists have denounced “sex denialism” in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. Colin Wright, of Penn State University, and Emma Hilton, of the University of Manchester, argue that the existence of only two sexes, male and female, is a scientific fact and that transgender ideology is “an eccentric academic theory”.

As they point out, even science journals are promoting a non-binary view of sex. “The idea of two sexes is simplistic,” Nature declared in 2015. “Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.” A 2018 Scientific American article asserted that “biologists now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male”. And in 2018 the New York Time explained “Why Sex Is Not Binary”."

https://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/biologists-question-transgender-claims/13339

In thinking about it even if Wright fails to cite any evidence his job search was adversely affected by his views regarding "transgender ideology", would it be inappropriate for a biology department to consider them IF they fall outside present consensus among biologists (as the article implies)?

@philokalia said
This is another important point...

Society tolerates natural boundaries.

Nobody feels upset that literal Nazis with swastika decor are banned from YouTube.

However, people feel bad that Stefan Molyneux is banned. I am not saying that anyone has to agree with him, I am not even saying that people have to ever listen to anything that he has to say... I am s ...[text shortened]... ficult discussions, even if it is so that they can actively oppose the people advancing these ideas.

Ah, I see. So you object to the use of the imagery, but not to the spreading of the ideology?

@suzianne said
I must say that I read this from you and wondered if maybe you were exhibiting some actual growth. This kind of thinking has been regarded as pretty much extremely unlikely to be had by a political conservative, especially these days.

This thinking is the beginning, though. Don't let it die stillborn. Maybe you'll eventually get to the point where you can accept that people can have different orientations than you without being "perverted".

Don't let Philokalia fool you with faux sincerity: he is here to spread white supremacist and bigoted views veiled by a lack of explicit racial slurs.

@shavixmir said
Did you see the letter Rowlings, Chompsky, etc. Published this week?
Did you see the reaction on twitter?

Did you note the reaction by a certain, very vocal minority on Rowlings when she defended transgenderism, but not in the exact narrative the transgender promotion crowd likes?

Did you notice, last year or so, the reaction of the #metoo crowd towards Margaret Atwo ...[text shortened]... a right not to be offended. And not using a word does not change the mentality of those you oppose.

"Did you see the letter Rowlings, Chompsky, etc. Published this week?
Did you see the reaction on twitter?"
First of all, is Rowlings no longer a millionaire?
Is Chomsky any less respected?

Most leftist shows i watched had absolutely nothing against the letter itself, with which they pretty much agree. They were just saddened that Chomsky signed the letter without knowing he will be associated with hypocrites and war criminals, but we pretty much don't care.

"Did you note the reaction by a certain, very vocal minority on Rowlings when she defended transgenderism, but not in the exact narrative the transgender promotion crowd likes?"
You just answered your question for me: "very vocal minority"


"Did you notice, last year or so, the reaction of the #metoo crowd towards Margaret Atwood (I posted on this issue when it happened) when she stated that the movement’s extremism is bypassing law.
Atwood has always been a feminist and supporter of women’s rights. But what she said didn’t fit the narrative."
Nope. This could be because i can't follow everything scandalous on the Internet (nobody can) or maybe because it wasn't a big deal and everybody stopped caring after a week or whatever

"This is what is troubling the left (people like me)."
It doesn't trouble me.
There will always be asholes on the Internet. Karens that demand to speak to your manager. If someone gets "canceled" without cause, make an effort and push from the other direction. Otherwise what are we really talking about? Trolls on the internet we cannot control?

"But, at the same time, listening to the right on this matter, you hear them up their ante, because they’re being called out and questioned and you hear them using the same line of thought the left has, to legitimize their foul agendas. And so, the extremist reaction by these movements is based in the same reactionary reflex as the right’s. And to a certain point understandable."
Huh? It's too vague. What do you mean/

"The extreme right, by the way, also decries anything which doesn’t fit their agenda as fake, untrustworthy, not researched, etc."
Yes. extremes are generally not ok. We've known this.

"The important point behind it all, I really believe, is that nobody has a right not to be offended."
And we agree on this. What we don't agree on is just how characteristic is this of a particular group. Right wingers get offended by christmas cups at starbucks and people taking a knee during a football game. There are snowflakes everywhere.

"And that is where the politically correct lose me."
That's a generic term meant to catch as many people as possible but there are nuances. Most people complaining about "politically correctness" are those that are sad they can't be asholes to other people without consequences. I never had to worry about political correctness? Did you?


"However, you don’t have a right not to be offended. And not using a word does not change the mentality of those you oppose."
And yet there will always be people like that. And right now they have a platform from which to be very vocal about it. What is your proposed solution? Other than making an effort, like i said, to "counter-cancel" someone you think is being treated unfairly.

Or are you expecting those snowflakes to go away on their own, with no effort on your part?

@philokalia said
Oh, I am sorry, but you are actually missing some really vital aspects to this debate, and without acknowledging these, your statements cannot hope to cover the complexity of the issue.

Here are two quotes that you did not reply to that would help us come to an idea of what you think, Zahl, and try to square that with the reality that we see, and figure out how we coul ...[text shortened]... 't even what Colin Wright did[/i] because what he had said was measured and respectful at all times.

"Oh, I am sorry, but you are actually missing some really vital aspects to this debate, and without acknowledging these, your statements cannot hope to cover the complexity of the issue. "
Ha, funny


"Since religion is a category of belief and thought that one can theoretically change, why is it wrong to suggest that other categories of belief do not receive the same privilege?"
I didn't address this because it's dumb and doesn't follow. But since i have some free time now...
Freedom of religion means you're free to practice your religion without persecution UNTIL your religion affects someone else's rights. You cannot sacrifice virgins to Baal, you cannot raid coastal villages to appease Odin. Your freedom ends when someone else's begins.

"Indeed, atheists are being discriminated against because they have less protection for their beleifs "
Atheism is not a belief system and it's not a religion.

"Yet, I am unaware of Catholics or other Christians demanding the firing of random people who have been active in atheist forums that are actively anti-Christian or for firing Richard Dawkins for referring to religion as a mind virus."
You are lying. You are aware of that, you're watching Fox News.


"But another is enough to ruin the career of Colin Wright...."
Another lie. He said it himself he suffered no consequences. Someone was mean to him on the internet.
Am I being canceled by you right now? Even though i won't suffer any consequences at work? Even though I will forget your dumb posts and not give it a second thought the moment I hit the post button on this reply?

@philokalia said
A very excellent Twitter thread was presented to us by the evolutionary biologist Colin Wright.

It dealt with cancel culture and how it affected him and his career in academia. In another place, he actually tweeted about how cancel culture is not just a thing that affects famous people and is a refelction of what we want to see on our airwaves, but ultimately is someth ...[text shortened]... the pictures necessary to contextualize this:
https://threadreaders.com/thread/1281793002986336256

“ I posted the following tweet citing the well-known "social contagion" hypothesis forwarded by Dr Lisa Littman's work on ROGD. ”

The fact that you posted this line in order to caste his critics as unreasonable vindictive snowflakes say’s a lot.
Do you think that referring to a section of your community who already face horrific levels of abuse up to, and including violent attacks as a “social contagion” is ok and that it falls within accepted commentary standards?

@philokalia said
But I am not a "white" nationalist. I believe I have said here before that I am a nationalist, but that is it. ^^ I think a lot of what you have accused me of there is regrettable.

I do understand how the content can be challenging and require a lot of time to go over.

I also think you were not really thinking out what you were postign since one of the things you p ...[text shortened]... t simply fling accusations that stifle discussion and demean my personal character.

Not cool! 😢

Are you denying that you have supported ethnic and race based limitations on immigration to the US on the grounds that the country should preserve its "ethnic heritage"?

Are you denying that you have endorsed the "great replacement" theories of white nationalism (I specifically remember you starting a thread complaining about the ethnic makeup of Paris not being "French" enough anymore)? As you surely known, this is a subset of "white extinction" theory which your immigration views are meant to combat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement

I'm not all that interested in discussing such racist theories though I have done so with you several times in the past. But it is simply dishonest of you to now claim that you have not endorsed such ideas on this Forum. If you feel that support for such ideas "demeans" your "personal character", then I suggest you abandon them.

Finally, do you feel that private businesses looking to attract customers of all ethnicities and races, should be required to allow users of their services to espouse such beliefs which are denigrating to the majority of the world's population?

@suzianne said
I must say that I read this from you and wondered if maybe you were exhibiting some actual growth. This kind of thinking has been regarded as pretty much extremely unlikely to be had by a political conservative, especially these days.

This thinking is the beginning, though. Don't let it die stillborn. Maybe you'll eventually get to the point where you can accept that people can have different orientations than you without being "perverted".

Thank you for the compliment but I do not actually know if it is that much different than what I thought several years ago when I first started posting here.

All forms of sexuality can be rationalized, and they can all manifest themselves differently in cultures.

But I am aware that it is nearly impossible to really apply a Christian standard of moral judgment on anyone unfamiliar with Christianity, just as it would be impossible for someone to hold me to the standards of their non-Christian traditions, and thus the concept of perversion isn't useful most of the time, and isn't really the language that will be beneficial to a discussion.

There's a lot of cool posts here, but I don't have that much time.

So, if I don't respond to your post, I apologize. But I got to get through the more important & interesting stuff.