I was sorta hinting at that. Seems to me we will end up protecting everybody which is the same as protecting nobody and thus the entire project of protecting special people is broken from the getgo.
Still strategically speaking, it would be easier to protect political opinion -- which would be a good thing in the current environment -- than it would be to dismantle the whole show -- a worthy long term goal however much it may be.
But that's not the spirit of anti-discrimination. We are allowed to discriminate based on views, speech and action - just not on 'immutable characteristics'. Political view is not immutable, and nor is religion for that matter. But little things like the actual meaning of words and reason and logic are all kind of passe now, so...
So why are we allowed to fire someone because we don't like their stubbornly clinging to the idea that there are only two sexes? But yeah, I get your point, the 'immutable characteristics' thing. But maybe I say that it's immutable that I like kiddie diddling? And already trans is protected, which is a state of mind, not an immutable characteristic. It is immutable that I'm male even if I do like cross dressing, but that *is* protected. And as you say, religion is also protected. If I believe that all infidels should be killed, that is protected, but if I think that Biden is a senile old fart who was never more than a mediocrity at his best, I can be fired for it?
I get it. I just think we can figure out what's immutable. Religion is tricky, and I think we can eliminate those that are explicitly seditious, like the one that illiterate goat herder emitted as he needed it to advance his imperial ambitions. Same with Marxism - it's purpose is to replace a classical liberal societies social, political and economic order. I'm not required to treat either as 'equal' to Christianity and Democracy and classical liberalism. But we long ago lost the guts to say any of this clearly. So here we are living in the world of Herbert Marcuse...
There are real consequences to cancel culture and the hiding away of diverse viewpoints. My 18-year-old daughter truly believes that my concerns about the gender affirmation model, the knee-jerk glorification of socially and medically altering young minds and bodies based on confusion or distress over the implications of one’s sexed body parts, are “fringe” only because the media relegates these concerns to the edges and mostly only conservative news outlets report on the real science (or lack thereof) behind medical transition. I know this idea permeates many other issues, but the promotion of the medical and social scandal that is the affirmation model is a very clear and direct result of cancel culture. Thank you for clarifying the meaning of this term, as it too has been inaccurately depicted in journalism in recent times.
Have no idea if this will help, but I found that Dr. Deb Soh is an aesthetically acceptable voice to women and young people. When I explain that she was very left and raised by two lesbians and isn't anti-gay, and is a neuroscientist focused on sex they tend to let their guard down a bit. Here's a short vid from an appearance she did on Rogan. They love vids...https://youtu.be/gHY24wtdUxM?si=TeRQPgAOsZ5J6qmG
Agreed, it wasn't 'cancel culture'. But Ben used a ridiculous way to frame his own editorial boundaries by claiming it was a kind of "Overton Window" - which means Ben has no idea what the Overton Window actually is, lol. I sorted all this out in a piece I just published, note Ben doesn't seem to understand that half of the U.S. does not want the U.S. to try to keep peace in the mideast. Candace's views are utterly mainstream, 49% of Republicans don't want us mucking about in the mideast for Israel or anyone. https://thisiswhatlosingfeelslike.substack.com/p/ben-vs-candace-its-not-about-cancel
"Conservatives, libertarians, and other non-leftist thinkers should create more big-tent organizations willing to publish any idea as long as it’s interesting and well-reasoned."
The problem with this is the innate human tendency to go with the path of least resistance. Less controversial, meaning more leftist, ideas will always meet with less resistance. In practice this typically means openness to ideas to the left of the editorial line and perpetual leftward drift.
I doubt that any mainstream non-leftist publication will feature any of my work any time soon, as I'm a white nationalist. I would love to be surprised, but I'm not holding my breath.
The reason we have to ask what is 'cancel culture' is that we trans widows have not been given a voice. When our voices documenting the abuse, narcissism and sexual fetish walked about as "normal" quite a lot will come into focus. Child safeguarding is an issue, as the children were sleeping while husband tried to force us:
Perhaps political/social opinion should become a Protected class just like sex and race and ...
Opposite. Get govt out of protecting any class or individual based on anything. Protected classes are the problem, not the solution.
I was sorta hinting at that. Seems to me we will end up protecting everybody which is the same as protecting nobody and thus the entire project of protecting special people is broken from the getgo.
Still strategically speaking, it would be easier to protect political opinion -- which would be a good thing in the current environment -- than it would be to dismantle the whole show -- a worthy long term goal however much it may be.
But that's not the spirit of anti-discrimination. We are allowed to discriminate based on views, speech and action - just not on 'immutable characteristics'. Political view is not immutable, and nor is religion for that matter. But little things like the actual meaning of words and reason and logic are all kind of passe now, so...
So why are we allowed to fire someone because we don't like their stubbornly clinging to the idea that there are only two sexes? But yeah, I get your point, the 'immutable characteristics' thing. But maybe I say that it's immutable that I like kiddie diddling? And already trans is protected, which is a state of mind, not an immutable characteristic. It is immutable that I'm male even if I do like cross dressing, but that *is* protected. And as you say, religion is also protected. If I believe that all infidels should be killed, that is protected, but if I think that Biden is a senile old fart who was never more than a mediocrity at his best, I can be fired for it?
I get it. I just think we can figure out what's immutable. Religion is tricky, and I think we can eliminate those that are explicitly seditious, like the one that illiterate goat herder emitted as he needed it to advance his imperial ambitions. Same with Marxism - it's purpose is to replace a classical liberal societies social, political and economic order. I'm not required to treat either as 'equal' to Christianity and Democracy and classical liberalism. But we long ago lost the guts to say any of this clearly. So here we are living in the world of Herbert Marcuse...
There are real consequences to cancel culture and the hiding away of diverse viewpoints. My 18-year-old daughter truly believes that my concerns about the gender affirmation model, the knee-jerk glorification of socially and medically altering young minds and bodies based on confusion or distress over the implications of one’s sexed body parts, are “fringe” only because the media relegates these concerns to the edges and mostly only conservative news outlets report on the real science (or lack thereof) behind medical transition. I know this idea permeates many other issues, but the promotion of the medical and social scandal that is the affirmation model is a very clear and direct result of cancel culture. Thank you for clarifying the meaning of this term, as it too has been inaccurately depicted in journalism in recent times.
Have no idea if this will help, but I found that Dr. Deb Soh is an aesthetically acceptable voice to women and young people. When I explain that she was very left and raised by two lesbians and isn't anti-gay, and is a neuroscientist focused on sex they tend to let their guard down a bit. Here's a short vid from an appearance she did on Rogan. They love vids...https://youtu.be/gHY24wtdUxM?si=TeRQPgAOsZ5J6qmG
Agreed, it wasn't 'cancel culture'. But Ben used a ridiculous way to frame his own editorial boundaries by claiming it was a kind of "Overton Window" - which means Ben has no idea what the Overton Window actually is, lol. I sorted all this out in a piece I just published, note Ben doesn't seem to understand that half of the U.S. does not want the U.S. to try to keep peace in the mideast. Candace's views are utterly mainstream, 49% of Republicans don't want us mucking about in the mideast for Israel or anyone. https://thisiswhatlosingfeelslike.substack.com/p/ben-vs-candace-its-not-about-cancel
"Conservatives, libertarians, and other non-leftist thinkers should create more big-tent organizations willing to publish any idea as long as it’s interesting and well-reasoned."
The problem with this is the innate human tendency to go with the path of least resistance. Less controversial, meaning more leftist, ideas will always meet with less resistance. In practice this typically means openness to ideas to the left of the editorial line and perpetual leftward drift.
I doubt that any mainstream non-leftist publication will feature any of my work any time soon, as I'm a white nationalist. I would love to be surprised, but I'm not holding my breath.
Yes. I agree. NPR is now cancel culture.
The reason we have to ask what is 'cancel culture' is that we trans widows have not been given a voice. When our voices documenting the abuse, narcissism and sexual fetish walked about as "normal" quite a lot will come into focus. Child safeguarding is an issue, as the children were sleeping while husband tried to force us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdIvcAA5HP8&t=391s