Jump to content

The Witch Trials, anyone else?


Recommended Posts

I'm about to start listening to the Witch Trials podcast mentioned in the OP.  Trying to approach this with an open mind but I have to admit that I have some pretty well formed opinions on Bari Weiss, and also on what JKR has publicly said over the last few years.  

Anyway, on looking at the sponsoring non-profits website, noticed this:

https://www.thefire.org/news/leading-first-amendment-lawyer-robert-corn-revere-joins-fire

Is Pynchon naming these first amendment lawyers?  Robert Corn-Revere?  Absolutely amazing!  His destiny was sealed with his naming.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

We desperately need to get our language straight if this debate has any hope at all. HoI specifically used the word ‘sex’ instead of ‘gender’, it was my understanding that this was the agreed upon term for differentiating the biological aspects (sex) with the mental ones (gender). 

It’s depressingly common to see this interchange, in which someone is challenged “do you believe trans women are women?”, and if someone equivocates at all, they’re a bigot. The challenger leaves convinced they’ve unearthed a bigot, and the challenged leaves convinced that the other had lost the plot and demanded a lie from them. All of which would have been cleared up if it’d just been agreed that ‘women’ is a gendered term and ‘female’ a sexed one, in which case the challenge becomes entirely mundane; trans women are by definition women. Glacier cherries are cherries, blood oranges are oranges, all highly uninteresting.

Which is why I find ‘trans women are women’ as a rallying cry a little daft; to those who already agree, it doesn’t mean anything. To those who don’t, it just comes across as ‘capitulate to our definitions’, which is no way to persuade anyone. It seems like the majority of online vitriol around the topic would be de-fanged if everyone had to first mutually agree to shared definitions.

...Uh, k.  You want to talk about being "very online" and attributing motives to people?  All I said was I didn't not have a problem with what HOI was explaining.  Didn't say he was a bigot - and to be clear I don't think he is.  Just expressing my opinion that I don't have a problem with what he articulated.  You, then, applied a one sentence response that in no way was meant to be hostile to three paragraphs of complaints, much of which I frankly don't care about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

More broadly, to everyone warning us about extreme left radicals... What are they doing or advocating for that is so dangerous?

Typically, I don't think of radical people on the left as dangerous: more hopelessly out of touch with everyday people, either Utopian or pessimistic in their worldview, and uninterested in pragmatic solutions or anything like compromise.

Radical on the right much more often means dangerous to me. And yet they also seem to have a better handle on storytelling, argument framing, and organizing for political action. They have their own infighting and purity politics, of course. And part of their efficacy in communication is due to their homogeneity, and their complete lack of restraint or shame.

But given that threat that the right wing poses, those wannabe-revolutionary looney types on the left do pose as a liability to our cause in effectively building a coalition that will resist right wing efforts to grab more and more power. We need to expand our coalitions, and so we need to prioritize coalitional politics. The "radical left" people shouting in pseudo-academic gobbledigook come off as angry space aliens to people outside of those bubbles, and they just cause more frustration and chaos in an already fraught environment.

Plus: no one like moral panics and mass scapegoating. The radical types are much more likely to engage in those tactics.

Edited by Phylum of Alexandria
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Typically, I don't think of radical people on the left as dangerous: more hopelessly out of touch with everyday people, either Utopian or pessimistic in their worldview, and uninterested in pragmatic solutions or anything like compromise.

Radical on the right much more often means dangerous to me. And yet they also seem to have a better handle on storytelling, argument framing, and organizing for political action. They have their own infighting and purity politics, of course. And part of their efficacy in communication is due to their homogeneity, and their complete lack of restraint or shame.

But given that threat that the right wing poses, those wannabe-revolutionary looney types on the left do pose as a liability to our cause in effectively building a coalition that will resist right wing efforts to grab more and more power. We need to expand our coalitions, and so we need to prioritize coalitional politics. The "radical left" people shouting in pseudo-academic gobbledigook come off as angry space aliens to people outside of those bubbles, and they just cause more frustration and chaos in an already fraught environment.

Plus: no one like moral panics and mass scapegoating. The radical types are much more likely to engage in those tactics.

I'll be sure to keep an eye out for these scapegoating radicals that are tanking The Cause!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

I'll be sure to keep an eye out for these scapegoating radicals that are tanking The Cause!

Thanks for the snark?

I know that Contrapoints is critical of the Witch Trials podcast, but part of why she was invited to join, and part of why she took part, was because she herself was the victim of a mass dragging. For those who haven't seen it, her video on the matter is a really good breakdown of the general phenomenon.

People turned on her largely due to her association with Buck Angel, a trans man who tends to be rather dismissive of nonbinary identities. Rude, to be sure, some crotchety gatekeeping by an older figure, but as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), it translated to zero policy differences, unlike Rowling. Yet Buck Angel is called a TERF and basically regarded as a Nazi or some other untouchable among those caught up in this moral panic. Natalie Wynn was dragged for collaborating with him. Natalie's friends were pressured to denounce her, and they too dragged if they did not.

I mean, are trying to say I'm making craziness like this up, that it's not that common, or that it's actually not that toxic?

Edited by Phylum of Alexandria
Video Link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m not aware of any off the top of my head.  But if you are claiming MTG is capable of things those on the left are not… is that really what you want to suggest?

Pales in comparison to the Koch network and affiliates. Pales in comparison to the Federalist Society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Thanks for the snark?

I know that Contrapoints is critical of the Witch Trials podcast, but part of why she was invited to join, and part of why she took part, was because she herself was the victim of a mass dragging. For those who haven't seen it, her video on the matter is a really good breakdown of the general phenomenon.

People turned on her largely due to her association with Buck Angel, a trans man who tends to be rather dismissive of nonbinary identities. Rude, to be sure, some crotchety gatekeeping by an older figure, but as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), it translated to zero policy differences, unlike Rowling. Yet Buck Angel is called a TERF and basically regarded as a Nazi or some other untouchable among those caught up in this moral panic. Natalie Wynn was dragged for collaborating with him. Natalie's friends were pressured to denounce her, and they too dragged if they did not.

I mean, are trying to say I'm making craziness like this up, that it's not that common, or that it's actually not that toxic?

Thanks for the link, I don't know anything about any of these people besides Rowling but I'll give the video a look when I have time. 

I'm guessing we're starting with petty different ideas of what radical or extremist means, and I was banned for a while somewhere during the last cancel culture discussions, so I'm a little hesitant to go down that rabbit hole again.

I will say, that while I know of a few people (David Shor, who seems to have made out quite well from his firing, or the SDG&E guy) who have unfairly suffered actual consequences like losing their jobs for things they said or wrote, "cancel culture" is just part and parcel with having free speech.  

I think the influence and effects of people getting a bunch of negative comments or retweets are greatly exaggerated, and I don't think a few zealots are what's stopping us from having universal healthcare or Roe V Wade enshrined in law.

But who knows?  I'm not claiming to be any expert on organizing for change and I'm certainly not an academic.  I'm just very wary of pointing the finger at a few strident voices and saying that's why we can't have nice things.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Thanks for the link, I don't know anything about any of these people besides Rowling but I'll give the video a look when I have time. 

I'm guessing we're starting with petty different ideas of what radical or extremist means, and I was banned for a while somewhere during the last cancel culture discussions, so I'm a little hesitant to go down that rabbit hole again.

I will say, that while I know of a few people (David Shor, who seems to have made out quite well from his firing, or the SDG&E guy) who have unfairly suffered actual consequences like losing their jobs for things they said or wrote, "cancel culture" is just part and parcel with having free speech.  

I think the influence and effects of people getting a bunch of negative comments or retweets are greatly exaggerated, and I don't think a few zealots are what's stopping us from having universal healthcare or Roe V Wade enshrined in law.

But who knows?  I'm not claiming to be any expert on organizing for change and I'm certainly not an academic.  I'm just very wary of pointing the finger at a few strident voices and saying that's why we can't have nice things. 

Well, watch the video and see what you think. She straight up says that the experience was deeply traumatic, and she felt isolated and like everyone was out to get her. She also makes the point that while wealthy celebrities tend to be relatively unaffected by cancelling, the story is very different for people on the lower tiers--both financially, socially, and psychologically. 

Anyway, I brought it up as the final sentence of a larger point. I don't think that "people don't like moral panics" should be all that controversial a position.

As for what's extreme, I agree that there is a conflation of extreme beliefs, and extreme tactics. There tends to be a lot of overlap there, but not necessarily. I don't mind radical views necessarily, but as PR strategies I think they are absolute folly.

And radical measures should be used very sparingly and cautiously, because there's usually a better option. People who blithely disagree with that sentiment I find rather dubious, or just young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

no one like moral panics and mass scapegoating. The radical types are much more likely to engage in those tactics.

This is so untrue, where can one begin with this untruth.  I dunno, perhaps way back in the 80's of the witch-pedo-satanist conspiracy in which even preschool kids were killing each other and drinking their blood because their teachers, minions of satan told them to?  Shall we speak of lives ruined now?  You cannot state the life of the person who just signed a ma$$ive deal with HBO has been ruined.  Can you?

There is no good faith in these declarations from those who have never ever even expressed a sad for anyone who isn't an authoritarian, xtian, white, fascist, nazi, rapist, racist, chronic liar (so many politicians! so many!) and hater of everyone who is that -- particularly Black, women, LGBTQ.  So nothing invoked or quoted Them is even worth looking at.

 

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

This is so untrue, where can one begin with this untruth.  I dunno, perhaps way back in the 80's of the witch-pedo-satanist conspiracy in which even preschool kids were killing each other and drinking their blood because their teachers, minions of satan told them to?  Shall we speak of lives ruined now?

There is no good faith in these declarations from those who have never ever even expressed a sad for anyone who isn't an authoritarian, xtian, white, fascist, nazi, rapist, racist, chronic liar (so many politicians! so many!) and hater of everyone who is that -- particularly Black, women, LGBTQ.  So nothing invoked or quoted Them is even worth looking at.

I would say those Satanic Panic people, and the all of the other Christian mass panics, were quite radical. Indeed, I mentioned in the previous "Woke" thread that one reason I hate this stuff happening on the left is that it reminds me of the religious right!

We're better than that. Most of us, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Well, watch the video and see what you think. She straight up says that the experience was deeply traumatic, and she felt isolated and like everyone was out to get her. She also makes the point that while wealthy celebrities tend to be relatively unaffected by cancelling, the story is very different for people on the lower tiers--both financially, socially, and psychologically. 

I thought this video was great, and it illustrated a point I made in the woke thread, and which was mostly scoffed at: the bad behavior is way worse when it comes from your own side. You expect your opponents to come at you, but you don't want that from the very people who are supposed to be your support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said:

I thought this video was great, and it illustrated a point I made in the woke thread, and which was mostly scoffed at: the bad behavior is way worse when it comes from your own side. You expect your opponents to come at you, but you don't want that from the very people who are supposed to be your support.

They were no true knights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You cannot state the life of the person who just signed a ma$$ive deal with HBO has been ruined.  Can you?

Rowling has a response to that, I think the first episode: that the dog pile and the abuse serves to warn people who were much more vulnerable than she is to the justice of the mob that they'll be next if they step a foot wrong. She cited several people who personally told her that they were warned off from speaking up on trans issues because, "Look what's happened with J.K. Rowling, you don't want that to happen to you," or words to that effect.

Speaking of Natalie Wynn, when her friend Lindsay Ellis was "cancelled", there were people tweeting, "Natalie Wynn, you're next". There are clearly people who try to harness the existence of social media mobs to  attempt to intimidate other people and "keep them in line."

I know quite a lot of people who did come to speak out on related matters, such as female athletes,  have said that seeing the kinds of abuse and attacks people who don't fall in line has led to a strong pressure to remain silent and just go along to get along even if you strongly feel something isn't  being handled properly.

 

 

 

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But can't They count on being supported by the lurkers in email?

It seems peeps are just gonna have to accept that I give a huge amount of caring about the constant shooting of harmless Black people that goes on every day -- like in my own state just now, an old white guy shot a 20 year old Black woman in her car as she stopped in his driveway because she couldn't find the address of friend, and was in a spot there on the Maine Vermont border where fone reception is iffy at best.

JRR doesn't matter at all in comparison.

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

But can't They count on being supported by the lurkers in email?

I don't know, ask someone who has been dogpiled on social media if people offering private (but not public) support rather than standing up for them in public feels great or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, right, that Trans people are actually killed by dogpilers quite often.  These are not equivalents.  

This is what all these groups face all day, every day in their lives, anywhere they are -- that These People are lurking, wanting to attack, even kill.  This is the real danger that concerns me.  People like JRR never even acknowledge this; nor do the defenders of her and Those ilks.

In fact, JRR and her ilks are truly dogpiling, punching down, way down, doing Their best to deny those whom They wish to exclude from full participation in life even the slightest of a safe place to exist.

Quote

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Twitter has quietly removed a policy against the “targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals,” raising concerns that the Elon Musk-owned platform is becoming less safe for marginalized groups.

https://apnews.com/article/twitter-elon-musk-transgender-deadnaming-hateful-conduct-ae1b7285bb906e04b26ff9751ec0c2ce

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

...Uh, k.  You want to talk about being "very online" and attributing motives to people?  All I said was I didn't not have a problem with what HOI was explaining.  Didn't say he was a bigot - and to be clear I don't think he is.  Just expressing my opinion that I don't have a problem with what he articulated.  You, then, applied a one sentence response that in no way was meant to be hostile to three paragraphs of complaints, much of which I frankly don't care about.

That’s entirely on me, I was just jumping off of HoI’s use of ‘sex’ to make a wider point and I thought you were disagreeing with it, but I possibly misread that and regardless, my post wasn’t clear why I’d quoted you anyway … my bad, apologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...