3 ms·

> See also, e.g. a friend ending our friendship because I gently challenged her fat acceptance rhetoric, "Anti-fatness is more toxic to women's bodies than fatn

> See also, e.g. a friend ending our friendship because I gently challenged her fat acceptance rhetoric, "Anti-fatness is more toxic to women's bodies than fatness has ever been." At best it's not falsifiable, but really it is just not a realistic statement. Is this really a topic you needed to weigh in on? I’m assuming you weren’t concern trolling or playing devil’s advocate, but it’s very easy to imagine how a “gentle challenge” might get interpreted as such if your relationship with the other person doesn’t generally include similar discussion topics.

morelisp 5y ago
Also, "I'm not friends with someone anymore after arguing with them" has historically not been called "cancel culture". Certainly I wouldn't hang around with someone constantly reminding me which of my views they currently think aren't falsifiable.
- roflc0ptic 5y ago
  Right, I'm not claiming it's ~cancel culture~, it is however anti-heretic behavior. See other comment; she's a professor and aspiring public intellectual. This combination of "I'm an authority so you have to listen to me" and "you can't challenge my beliefs because it's oppression" is a recipe for bad thinking.
  - morelisp 5y ago
    > Right, I'm not claiming it's ~cancel culture~, You have literally provided it as an example of canceling: > > When people bring up posts like this they never say what the "heresies" are. People aren't getting "cancelled" for their takes on taxes. > There are plenty of examples... e.g. a friend ending our friendship
    - roflc0ptic 5y ago
      ... on an article about heretical thought, in response to someone asking what the heresies are. :shrug: I'm not moving the goalpost here :)
roflc0ptic 5y ago
She's a professor and aims to be a public intellectual; she's written a book. I really think this in and of itself is invitation for dialogue. Also, our relationship was been fine talking about politics when I agreed with her, but any disagreement was treated as hostile/moral failure on my part. I'm really pretty good at listening and being respectful; these sorts of failure modes in communication in my life have come exclusively with dedicated self-identified activists.
- throwaway82652 5y ago
  I don't think you can't really blame someone for that when their activism is a core part of their identity. People wouldn't become activists if they weren't deeply affected by these things. It's not their prerogative to (in their view) waste time with people who are just going to argue and push in the other direction. That's my experience from talking to a lot of activists, anyway. They have to be very careful to pick their battles.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    Sure you can? Someone can be affected by things and still end up with false beliefs. It’s possible to still be kind to someone and argue a belief they hold is wrong. What’s true can be in conflict with deeply held beliefs (and often is). Part of the core issue is when one side won’t engage in actual discussion of the content and only argues at the meta level about identity. I think roflc0ptic’s examples are good ones - thankfully it seems the discourse around this kind of stuff is shifting back to being more moderate.
    - throwaway82652 5y ago
      You're absolutely correct, but that still isn't helpful to someone who is already committed to being a single-issue activist. You're taking completely the wrong angle. You have to address the why and not the belief itself. Edit: It's not particularly important or relevant to what's been said here if you see the mainstream discourse as shifting to being "more moderate". This is a given with any single-issue activist, it's your business if you deal in organizing activists. The shift to being moderate only happens through this process, there's no other process. If you don't concern yourself with organizing activists, then this isn't your wheelhouse, and I don't see why it was brought up.

morelisp 5y ago

Also, "I'm not friends with someone anymore after arguing with them" has historically not been called "cancel culture". Certainly I wouldn't hang around with someone constantly reminding me which of my views they currently think aren't falsifiable.

roflc0ptic 5y ago
Right, I'm not claiming it's ~cancel culture~, it is however anti-heretic behavior. See other comment; she's a professor and aspiring public intellectual. This combination of "I'm an authority so you have to listen to me" and "you can't challenge my beliefs because it's oppression" is a recipe for bad thinking.
- morelisp 5y ago
  > Right, I'm not claiming it's ~cancel culture~, You have literally provided it as an example of canceling: > > When people bring up posts like this they never say what the "heresies" are. People aren't getting "cancelled" for their takes on taxes. > There are plenty of examples... e.g. a friend ending our friendship
  - roflc0ptic 5y ago
    ... on an article about heretical thought, in response to someone asking what the heresies are. :shrug: I'm not moving the goalpost here :)

roflc0ptic 5y ago

She's a professor and aims to be a public intellectual; she's written a book. I really think this in and of itself is invitation for dialogue. Also, our relationship was been fine talking about politics when I agreed with her, but any disagreement was treated as hostile/moral failure on my part. I'm really pretty good at listening and being respectful; these sorts of failure modes in communication in my life have come exclusively with dedicated self-identified activists.

throwaway82652 5y ago
I don't think you can't really blame someone for that when their activism is a core part of their identity. People wouldn't become activists if they weren't deeply affected by these things. It's not their prerogative to (in their view) waste time with people who are just going to argue and push in the other direction. That's my experience from talking to a lot of activists, anyway. They have to be very careful to pick their battles.
- gonehome 5y ago
  Sure you can? Someone can be affected by things and still end up with false beliefs. It’s possible to still be kind to someone and argue a belief they hold is wrong. What’s true can be in conflict with deeply held beliefs (and often is). Part of the core issue is when one side won’t engage in actual discussion of the content and only argues at the meta level about identity. I think roflc0ptic’s examples are good ones - thankfully it seems the discourse around this kind of stuff is shifting back to being more moderate.
  - throwaway82652 5y ago
    You're absolutely correct, but that still isn't helpful to someone who is already committed to being a single-issue activist. You're taking completely the wrong angle. You have to address the why and not the belief itself. Edit: It's not particularly important or relevant to what's been said here if you see the mainstream discourse as shifting to being "more moderate". This is a given with any single-issue activist, it's your business if you deal in organizing activists. The shift to being moderate only happens through this process, there's no other process. If you don't concern yourself with organizing activists, then this isn't your wheelhouse, and I don't see why it was brought up.