4 ms·

It will be interesting to watch our new language lords evolve. We’ve already seen backlash against Rowling for being a TERF. However TERF ideology was fine just

It will be interesting to watch our new language lords evolve. We’ve already seen backlash against Rowling for being a TERF. However TERF ideology was fine just a few years ago. Who knows what will become the new taboo.

toomanyrichies 6y ago
> our new language lords > TERF ideology was fine just a few years ago > who knows what will become the new taboo I'd like to understand the point you're trying to make in greater detail. Do you object to anti-TERF ideology in particular, or evolving cultural standards in general?
- controversy 6y ago
  I object to hypocrisy. Those pushing speech limits are the same who pushed for freedom. Why was did gay rights win the day? It was due to a cogent argument that freedom is better than hiding in the shadows. Rather than suppressing gay speech, people said they had a right to make their case. Now there is a wing that attacks as immoral anyone who doesn’t agree with them. They have become the thing they fought: fundamentalist.
  - yodon 6y ago
    The right to free speech gives you a right to speak. It does not give you a right to be respected for your words. Respect must always be earned.
    - controversy 6y ago
      I agree with your sentiment. I agree with the general idea. My problem is that the people behind cancel culture are hypocrites. Fundamentalists and even society in general 30 years ago said homosexuality was morally abhorrent. They tried to cancel gays. People spoke up. They said that canceling someone was wrong. Through this the far left gained traction. Now they’ve turned around and established the old norms with a new boss. The promise made in the late 90s was that the gays wanted a live and let live policy. What they did in their home life shouldn’t matter to anyone. If someone want to take issue with their life style, they could as long as the gays’ day to day rights were respected. The truce seems to be broken. There are those within the LGBTQ+ community that are seeking retribution. They are seeking to establish their own courts in the public discourse to revile those who took their forefathers to legal ones. Ultimately this is going to end with the left eating itself. Their hypocrisy will run smooth after awhile. In the meantime there will be many hearts removed on the alter of their cause. To the question below about canceling over intolerance, I see little benefit in that since the things which we are to tolerate keep moving as do those which we should abhor. Kevin Hart lost the opportunity to host an awards show because of some old jokes. Golden Girls had an episode removed because they wore mud masks. There was a fight at the BBC over a Faulty Towers episode with the N-word. Heck John Cleese is in self imposed exile because of the thought police in England. To destroy a young man or woman’s future because of foolish indiscretions in their teens is unconscionable. That is the way of fostering the next generation of hate. We will continue to live in a truly racist world because of actions like this. To deny the children entry on these grounds is to say they have no value. They will take this with them into life. They will raise their children in the soil of animosity.
      - toomanyrichies 6y ago
        They didn't say that "canceling someone" was wrong. They said that "canceling someone for being gay" was wrong. Do you really not see the difference between that and "canceling someone for being intolerant"?
      - toomanyrichies 6y ago
        > There are those within the LGBTQ+ community that are seeking retribution. They are seeking to establish their own courts in the public discourse to revile those who took their forefathers to legal ones. When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. There are those within almost every community who seek extreme aims. It's foolish to judge any community by the behavior of its most extreme members. I certainly don't judge conservatives by the actions of the small minority of the many far-right ideologues whose voices are being amplified by people in power these days. How about judging the LGBTQ+ community by its mainstream goals? Like, for instance, equality? > To deny the children entry on these grounds is to say they have no value. How is that the case? Plenty of college applicants are denied entry every year, for a variety of reasons. You've so far failed to prove that denying someone admission on the grounds of their racist conduct is tantamount to saying they have no value, whereas denying them admission on other grounds makes no such equivalency. Maybe tone down the hyperbole a bit. > They will take this with them into life. They will raise their children in the soil of animosity. It sounds like you're saying that their plan is to raise their kids to be racists out of spite, because they themselves faced the inconvenience of actual consequences for their own racist behavior at some point in the past. If that's the case, that only bolsters my point that any self-respecting academic institution would be wise to deny admission to a person as petty as that. > To destroy a young man or woman’s future because of foolish indiscretions in their teens is unconscionable. Barring someone from admission to a specific university is hardly the same as "destroying their future". Plenty of people have gone on to successful careers and happy lives despite being denied admission to their university of choice. Having said that, were you equally vocal about the shooting death of Michael Brown? That's an example of an 18-year-old's future being literally taken away, as opposed to figuratively via a denial of admission to a specific university. If you're not at least as outraged by one outcome as you are by the other, I really don't know what else to tell you.

toomanyrichies 6y ago

> our new language lords > TERF ideology was fine just a few years ago > who knows what will become the new taboo I'd like to understand the point you're trying to make in greater detail. Do you object to anti-TERF ideology in particular, or evolving cultural standards in general?

controversy 6y ago
I object to hypocrisy. Those pushing speech limits are the same who pushed for freedom. Why was did gay rights win the day? It was due to a cogent argument that freedom is better than hiding in the shadows. Rather than suppressing gay speech, people said they had a right to make their case. Now there is a wing that attacks as immoral anyone who doesn’t agree with them. They have become the thing they fought: fundamentalist.
- yodon 6y ago
  The right to free speech gives you a right to speak. It does not give you a right to be respected for your words. Respect must always be earned.
  - controversy 6y ago
    I agree with your sentiment. I agree with the general idea. My problem is that the people behind cancel culture are hypocrites. Fundamentalists and even society in general 30 years ago said homosexuality was morally abhorrent. They tried to cancel gays. People spoke up. They said that canceling someone was wrong. Through this the far left gained traction. Now they’ve turned around and established the old norms with a new boss. The promise made in the late 90s was that the gays wanted a live and let live policy. What they did in their home life shouldn’t matter to anyone. If someone want to take issue with their life style, they could as long as the gays’ day to day rights were respected. The truce seems to be broken. There are those within the LGBTQ+ community that are seeking retribution. They are seeking to establish their own courts in the public discourse to revile those who took their forefathers to legal ones. Ultimately this is going to end with the left eating itself. Their hypocrisy will run smooth after awhile. In the meantime there will be many hearts removed on the alter of their cause. To the question below about canceling over intolerance, I see little benefit in that since the things which we are to tolerate keep moving as do those which we should abhor. Kevin Hart lost the opportunity to host an awards show because of some old jokes. Golden Girls had an episode removed because they wore mud masks. There was a fight at the BBC over a Faulty Towers episode with the N-word. Heck John Cleese is in self imposed exile because of the thought police in England. To destroy a young man or woman’s future because of foolish indiscretions in their teens is unconscionable. That is the way of fostering the next generation of hate. We will continue to live in a truly racist world because of actions like this. To deny the children entry on these grounds is to say they have no value. They will take this with them into life. They will raise their children in the soil of animosity.
    - toomanyrichies 6y ago
      They didn't say that "canceling someone" was wrong. They said that "canceling someone for being gay" was wrong. Do you really not see the difference between that and "canceling someone for being intolerant"?
    - toomanyrichies 6y ago
      > There are those within the LGBTQ+ community that are seeking retribution. They are seeking to establish their own courts in the public discourse to revile those who took their forefathers to legal ones. When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. There are those within almost every community who seek extreme aims. It's foolish to judge any community by the behavior of its most extreme members. I certainly don't judge conservatives by the actions of the small minority of the many far-right ideologues whose voices are being amplified by people in power these days. How about judging the LGBTQ+ community by its mainstream goals? Like, for instance, equality? > To deny the children entry on these grounds is to say they have no value. How is that the case? Plenty of college applicants are denied entry every year, for a variety of reasons. You've so far failed to prove that denying someone admission on the grounds of their racist conduct is tantamount to saying they have no value, whereas denying them admission on other grounds makes no such equivalency. Maybe tone down the hyperbole a bit. > They will take this with them into life. They will raise their children in the soil of animosity. It sounds like you're saying that their plan is to raise their kids to be racists out of spite, because they themselves faced the inconvenience of actual consequences for their own racist behavior at some point in the past. If that's the case, that only bolsters my point that any self-respecting academic institution would be wise to deny admission to a person as petty as that. > To destroy a young man or woman’s future because of foolish indiscretions in their teens is unconscionable. Barring someone from admission to a specific university is hardly the same as "destroying their future". Plenty of people have gone on to successful careers and happy lives despite being denied admission to their university of choice. Having said that, were you equally vocal about the shooting death of Michael Brown? That's an example of an 18-year-old's future being literally taken away, as opposed to figuratively via a denial of admission to a specific university. If you're not at least as outraged by one outcome as you are by the other, I really don't know what else to tell you.