J.K. Rowling and the TERF wars

[Surfah]

Embedded Tweet

[falafel]

Embedded Tweet

At first I didn't know if PinkNews was an Onion-like account.

[Bo Diddley]

At first I didn't know if PinkNews was an Onion-like account.

Yeah, I'm still just scratching my head.

[swampfrog]

On the Psychology of Cancel Culture in Psychology Today

Plainly, if there is an activity that will elevate the status of oneself or one’s group, people will do it. One approach to elevation is to do something good. But doing something good requires effort and the possibility of failure. Fortunately, another option exists: Broadcasting the bad behavior of others. This method works because social status is relative. One person losing social rank is the same as another gaining it. If you’re a 6 on the social-status ladder, working up to a 9 is hard. But scheming to bring a 9 down to a 3 is easier and more thrilling. It is much easier to unite people around bringing a 9 down to a 3 than to lift themselves up from a 6 to a 9. Additionally, people are slow to give moral praise for a good act and quick to assign moral blame for a bad one. The relative difficulty of doing something good and the prolonged waiting period to receive credit for it is why cancel culture has flourished. It offers quicker social rewards. Indeed, research shows that people engage in moral grandstanding to enhance their social rank.

Cancel culture is a collective activity that strengthens social bonds for members within the group. While doing something good can increase the status of one’s group and bring members closer together, it also brings the possibility of failure. It is hard to unite a group to do something good because of this risk. People join in broadcasting the misdeeds of others because it is more fun for them. It offers status and social solidarity at little cost.

Cancel culture is group gossip applied and amplified via modern media.

[swampfrog]

Sounds like different circumstances.

Compare Bari's resignation letter to Sullivan's last column out today.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

What has happened, I think, is relatively simple: A critical mass of the staff and management at New York Magazine and Vox Media no longer want to associate with me, and, in a time of ever tightening budgets, I’m a luxury item they don’t want to afford. And that’s entirely their prerogative. They seem to believe, and this is increasingly the orthodoxy in mainstream media, that any writer not actively committed to critical theory in questions of race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity is actively, physically harming co-workers merely by existing in the same virtual space. Actually attacking, and even mocking, critical theory’s ideas and methods, as I have done continually in this space, is therefore out of sync with the values of Vox Media. That, to the best of my understanding, is why I’m out of here.

[Jeff Lebowski]

On the Psychology of Cancel Culture in Psychology Today

Cancel culture is group gossip applied and amplified via modern media.

That was interesting. That guy is probably going to get cancelled now.

[swampfrog]

That was interesting. That guy is probably going to get cancelled now.

I won't be surprised if that gets removed from Psychology Today.

I'm surprised he hasn't been cancelled already. He has all of the wrong opinions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/o...cambridge.html

But I don’t want to rehash or defend Dr. Peterson’s views here — he’s more than capable of doing that himself. I want to explain what happens to people like me when a place like Cambridge says Dr. Peterson isn’t welcome.

My heart dropped into my stomach when I learned that Dr. Peterson’s offer from the Divinity School had been revoked. Doing so sends the message that there’s something wrong with people who value his message — that there’s something wrong with me.

I also recognize that this mirrors the protesters’ claims that his invitation makes them feel unwelcome. But I still find myself in a strange position: The Cambridge University students’ union says Dr. Peterson’s views are not representative of the student body. Yet the very reason I am a part of the student body is because of Dr. Peterson.

There may not be a clear solution to this. But if a solution exists at all, it will be found through charitable dialogue and free expression, of the sort that universities are supposed to foster.

[swampfrog]

More analysis of the attempted Pinker cancellation and cancel culture.

But the hundreds of academics who targeted Pinker were not merely reaffirming sensible, widely agreed upon taboos. They were trying to radically narrow the bounds of acceptable speech and inquiry. A closer look at the letter lays bare the specific ideological orthodoxies and political tests that at least hundreds of linguists now feel comfortable openly imposing on their colleagues.

[swampfrog]

Maybe it's comforting to know that it's been this way for quite a while.

Embedded Tweet

[Jeff Lebowski]

In case you missed it, Scotland recently passed a new law that made it a hate crime to misgender someone, with a jail sentence of up to seven years if convicted. JK Rowling decided to push in all of her chips and made an n0n-April fools post/thread where she defiantly broke the new law by calling a bunch of high-profile trans women (mostly pedophiles, convicts) men. The intent, of course, was not to imply that all trans women are criminals, but to highlight the absurdity of criminalizing the assertion of biological sex in even extreme cases like this, and the inherent misogyny of prioritizing the rights of these people over the rights of women.

Embedded Tweet

This thread dissects the strategy of what JKR is doing. She is forcing the Scottish government to arrest her and defend the law in what would be a trial of the century, or not arrest her and thereby effectively nullify the law, given that everyone else thereafter could point to her case and argue selective enforcement.

Embedded Tweet

And apparently the Scottish government immediately capitulated and chose option #2.

Embedded Tweet

[Bo Diddley]

They were talking about this on Good Morning Britain this morning. She has Richi Sunak's support. I think cooler heads are prevailing here.

[Pelado]

That. Was. Awesome.

[Moliere]

Rowling is great and is doing good work. I’m so glad I live in a country that protects freedom of speech. It’s crazy how important that right has been and continues to be now and in the future.

[Maximus]

This law is stupid but Rowling has taken a free fall

Not the time

[Omaha 680]