7 ms·

gp asked specifically what "cancelled" means. You seem to be trying to avoid providing any definition and instead creating and attacking straw men based on your

gp asked specifically what "cancelled" means. You seem to be trying to avoid providing any definition and instead creating and attacking straw men based on your imagination of a leftist argument. Get a grip then respond.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
And I suppose if I felt it was honestly asked I might respond to it.
- komali2 4y ago
  In our various conversations on this thread, you're continually posting in bad faith, because I and a few others aren't granting you your base assumptions. I've found it to be both enlightening and effective in these kinds of conversations to make sure to ask very simple questions about what we're really talking about. Why? Because for example I often have people say to my face that the american democrat party is a communist party. Hah. Or, more grim: that queer people are groomers. Terrifying. So it's an entirely fair question to ask you what you mean by "cancelled." I genuinely don't know. You said a professor was cancelled - but the professor was able to give a speech at the same university. I don't understand! I really don't! What does "cancelled" really mean? Because if you can't answer that, maybe this thing you fear doesn't actually exist. Maybe you really are just functioning as a reactionary enforcer of status quo and lashing out against actual counter-cultural speech, against arguments that are actually being "cancelled" by you and those that support your position. The same for gender. You said to me on another comment, that "you aren't talking about gender identity," but you earlier in the same chain said "care givers tend to be women." Yet it's as obvious to me that that is a circular definition of a gender completely detached from biological markers ("women are caregivers") as it is to you that men are big masculine lumberjacks. So instead of letting you get away with, I don't know, some kind of assumptive bias? Begging the question? Argument to tradition? Instead I'm simply asking you to demonstrate why it's acceptable to assume "care givers tend to be women." Personally as a man I reject this because it leads to pretty shitty outcomes like me being given stink eye from people when I'm "alone" at a children's playground... until my kid runs up to me. To give a concrete example. Not to mention I reject that "race car drivers tend to be men" for the obvious nod towards the very annoying stereotype that women are worse drivers than men. Ugh. I'll give you enough good faith to assume that was unintentional on your part. TLDR you presented a presumptive conservative position and got reactionary when asked, by different people (annoyance at me is normal, I am an annoying person), very simple questions about terms setting and definitions. So? What's up with your ideas? They don't stand to scrutiny? I mean you're doing what your position tends to accuse my position of, which is for me why I put my foot down so damn hard in conversations like this: you're acting offended, you're responding rudely and, frankly, irrationally, and straight up I don't see any rhetorical, logical, ethical, deductive, or evidential basis for the broad vaguely conservative smear I find your belief system to be.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    Sorry, I'm not reading all of that. I stopped at the second paragraph. The answer to the question doesn't actually matter, not to you, and not to me. It's a ploy to try and confound the conversation. If you and the other poster really feel it needs to be defined, then define cancelled as "the thing that happened to Dorian Abbot". boom, you're done. It now has a definition, tautological, but valid nonetheless. The thing that should be getting discussed is whether or not what happened to him should have happened to him. And the answer is no, it shouldn't happen to anyone. And now I'm going to leave you with an observation by Richard Feynman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s
    - komali2 4y ago
      > Sorry, I'm not reading all of that. I stopped at the second paragraph. Then, you aren't actually interested in rigorous debate, challenging your ideas? Why are you even here? You have an opportunity here, someone that might have completely different ideas from you, and repeatedly engages with you in good faith in spite of your insults, and your answer is "tldr." Forgive me if I doubt your commitment to the spirit of the value MIT claims to espouse regarding the importance of having these kinds of conversations. > , then define cancelled as "the thing that happened to Dorian Abbot" Great! Nothing really bad happened to Dorian Abbot. He got to give his speech and now has defined his career around opposing affirmative action. So, why were you using him as an example earlier as a counter point to me as the negative potentials of not tolerating the intolerant? > The thing that should be getting discussed is whether or not what happened to him should have happened to him. But nothing bad happened to him. Your video link is my favorite ever instance of irony I've ever encountered on this site. In it, Feynman says "you know all the names for that bird, but you know nothing about that bird... People tell me 'did you hear about Jackson Fleugrn experiment?' well no, what's that, can you explain it? I get in trouble cause I never learn the names of things." You've been asked, what does "cancelled" mean, you answered, "Whatever happened to that guy." Yeah, what happened to that guy? "He got cancelled!"
      - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago

And I suppose if I felt it was honestly asked I might respond to it.

komali2 4y ago
In our various conversations on this thread, you're continually posting in bad faith, because I and a few others aren't granting you your base assumptions. I've found it to be both enlightening and effective in these kinds of conversations to make sure to ask very simple questions about what we're really talking about. Why? Because for example I often have people say to my face that the american democrat party is a communist party. Hah. Or, more grim: that queer people are groomers. Terrifying. So it's an entirely fair question to ask you what you mean by "cancelled." I genuinely don't know. You said a professor was cancelled - but the professor was able to give a speech at the same university. I don't understand! I really don't! What does "cancelled" really mean? Because if you can't answer that, maybe this thing you fear doesn't actually exist. Maybe you really are just functioning as a reactionary enforcer of status quo and lashing out against actual counter-cultural speech, against arguments that are actually being "cancelled" by you and those that support your position. The same for gender. You said to me on another comment, that "you aren't talking about gender identity," but you earlier in the same chain said "care givers tend to be women." Yet it's as obvious to me that that is a circular definition of a gender completely detached from biological markers ("women are caregivers") as it is to you that men are big masculine lumberjacks. So instead of letting you get away with, I don't know, some kind of assumptive bias? Begging the question? Argument to tradition? Instead I'm simply asking you to demonstrate why it's acceptable to assume "care givers tend to be women." Personally as a man I reject this because it leads to pretty shitty outcomes like me being given stink eye from people when I'm "alone" at a children's playground... until my kid runs up to me. To give a concrete example. Not to mention I reject that "race car drivers tend to be men" for the obvious nod towards the very annoying stereotype that women are worse drivers than men. Ugh. I'll give you enough good faith to assume that was unintentional on your part. TLDR you presented a presumptive conservative position and got reactionary when asked, by different people (annoyance at me is normal, I am an annoying person), very simple questions about terms setting and definitions. So? What's up with your ideas? They don't stand to scrutiny? I mean you're doing what your position tends to accuse my position of, which is for me why I put my foot down so damn hard in conversations like this: you're acting offended, you're responding rudely and, frankly, irrationally, and straight up I don't see any rhetorical, logical, ethical, deductive, or evidential basis for the broad vaguely conservative smear I find your belief system to be.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  Sorry, I'm not reading all of that. I stopped at the second paragraph. The answer to the question doesn't actually matter, not to you, and not to me. It's a ploy to try and confound the conversation. If you and the other poster really feel it needs to be defined, then define cancelled as "the thing that happened to Dorian Abbot". boom, you're done. It now has a definition, tautological, but valid nonetheless. The thing that should be getting discussed is whether or not what happened to him should have happened to him. And the answer is no, it shouldn't happen to anyone. And now I'm going to leave you with an observation by Richard Feynman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s
  - komali2 4y ago
    > Sorry, I'm not reading all of that. I stopped at the second paragraph. Then, you aren't actually interested in rigorous debate, challenging your ideas? Why are you even here? You have an opportunity here, someone that might have completely different ideas from you, and repeatedly engages with you in good faith in spite of your insults, and your answer is "tldr." Forgive me if I doubt your commitment to the spirit of the value MIT claims to espouse regarding the importance of having these kinds of conversations. > , then define cancelled as "the thing that happened to Dorian Abbot" Great! Nothing really bad happened to Dorian Abbot. He got to give his speech and now has defined his career around opposing affirmative action. So, why were you using him as an example earlier as a counter point to me as the negative potentials of not tolerating the intolerant? > The thing that should be getting discussed is whether or not what happened to him should have happened to him. But nothing bad happened to him. Your video link is my favorite ever instance of irony I've ever encountered on this site. In it, Feynman says "you know all the names for that bird, but you know nothing about that bird... People tell me 'did you hear about Jackson Fleugrn experiment?' well no, what's that, can you explain it? I get in trouble cause I never learn the names of things." You've been asked, what does "cancelled" mean, you answered, "Whatever happened to that guy." Yeah, what happened to that guy? "He got cancelled!"
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago