Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[marshwiggle]

Here is the original article with excerpts of her book:

Anthropologist says she is being punished because of her views

From the article:

Most of the bones in question were found in Alameda County, Calif., and range from 500 to 3,000 years old, Weiss said in an interview. They are in the process of being repatriated, but she would like access to them until they're gone.

If anyone finds bones of someone they think is an ancestor of mine from 500+ years ago, they're welcome to keep them in a museum. If the only connections are by DNA and geographical speculation, that's a tenuous enough connection to not worry about.

(I'm not opposed to guidelines around handling any human remains with respect, so forbidding skulls to be used for batting practice is reasonable, but scientific research is fine with me.)

[Wahoo Redux]

I think the scenario for Native-Americans is different than the scenario for we pinkish-white people, Marshy.

I refuse to take the blame for the destruction of the First Nations, but I do want to have absolute respect for the people of First Nation ancestry.  This is one of the ways in which we can anneal the past.

Return the remains out of respect for the living.

[marshwiggle]

I think the scenario for Native-Americans is different than the scenario for we pinkish-white people, Marshy.

I refuse to take the blame for the destruction of the First Nations, but I do want to have absolute respect for the people of First Nation ancestry.  This is one of the ways in which we can anneal the past.

Return the remains out of respect for the living.

Part of the problem with the really ancient remains is that they're not clearly tied to existing groups. There are areas where different groups have occupied the same geographical area with centuries-long gaps between them. They have different artifacts and so there's no indication whether or not the later groups were decendents of the earlier ones.

I'm completely in favour of returning artifacts and remains that were taken from existing groups. If remains are from a group that no longer exists, there's no one to "return" them to, and simply interring them has no obvious benefit. (As I indicated, I don't care if remains that may be from ancestors of mine from 1000 years ago are interred or not; there's nothing sacred about having them even on the same continent as where they came from.)

[Diogenes]

Not sure how I feel about that case, but the article should have done a better job of putting more context- anthropology and archaeology are constantly having to face their overtly racist past and so the sensitivity the greater community is having around this case isn't just about what was found on federal land when.

[downer]

Long article, behind a paywall.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/an-unacceptable-idea

Older Newsweek article here:
https://www.newsweek.com/allyn-walker-virginia-old-dominion-university-pedophilia-minor-attracted-1653340
which has the usual set of moronic comments from readers.

[marshwiggle]

Long article, behind a paywall.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/an-unacceptable-idea

Older Newsweek article here:
https://www.newsweek.com/allyn-walker-virginia-old-dominion-university-pedophilia-minor-attracted-1653340
which has the usual set of moronic comments from readers.

I realize this is a bit separate from the "cancellation" issue, but the underlying idea that all of a person's proclivities should be publicized, even if they aren't going to be acted on, is weird, to say the least. If a step-parent was attracted to their step-child, should they express that, even if they aren't going to act on it? Should a supervisor who is attracted to a subordinate express that, even if they aren't going to act on it? Should someone who wonders what the family pet would taste like express that, even if they don't intend to act on it?

It's a ridiculous premise. Every thought that crosses a person's mind is not automatically good for sharing.

[downer]

Here's a story from a far right source.
https://freebeacon.com/campus/double-jeopardy-princeton-prepares-to-axe-star-professor-who-raised-hell-over-woke-lunacy/

Supposedly Princeton will be firing an "anti-woke" professor today. We will see. I suspect it is a distortion. Katz has also been accused of sexual relationships with students, which may be the actual reason he could be fired. The far right media downplay that part of the story.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/princeton-preparing-to-fire-tenured-professor-for-opposing-far-left-activists/

Katz seems to be spoiling for a fight, but losing.
https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2021/10/joshua-katz-lawsuit-acls-dismissed-by-nj-court

[Parasaurolophus]

I realize this is a bit separate from the "cancellation" issue, but the underlying idea that all of a person's proclivities should be publicized, even if they aren't going to be acted on, is weird, to say the least. If a step-parent was attracted to their step-child, should they express that, even if they aren't going to act on it? Should a supervisor who is attracted to a subordinate express that, even if they aren't going to act on it? Should someone who wonders what the family pet would taste like express that, even if they don't intend to act on it?

It's a ridiculous premise. Every thought that crosses a person's mind is not automatically good for sharing.

How is that the underlying premise? Did the CNN article say something crazy? Because the other one didn't. Walker isn't saying that you should shout your attraction to minors from the rooftops; they're saying there's a difference between feelings of attraction and sexual abuse.

[marshwiggle]

I realize this is a bit separate from the "cancellation" issue, but the underlying idea that all of a person's proclivities should be publicized, even if they aren't going to be acted on, is weird, to say the least. If a step-parent was attracted to their step-child, should they express that, even if they aren't going to act on it? Should a supervisor who is attracted to a subordinate express that, even if they aren't going to act on it? Should someone who wonders what the family pet would taste like express that, even if they don't intend to act on it?

It's a ridiculous premise. Every thought that crosses a person's mind is not automatically good for sharing.

How is that the underlying premise? Did the CNN article say something crazy? Because the other one didn't. Walker isn't saying that you should shout your attraction to minors from the rooftops; they're saying there's a difference between feelings of attraction and sexual abuse.

Walker's book, "A Long, Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity", was published in June.

The "pursuit of dignity" is unnecessary if they're not engaging in any illegal activity and not shouting it from the rooftops; if their interests are kept private, then  they will be seen and treated like anyone else. The only problem comes if and when they want other people to know of their interests, i.e. when they shout it from the rooftops.

[Wahoo Redux]

Read the article.  Think about it before you post, Marshy.  And then don't obstinately defend your misinterpretation when it is pointed out to you.

We've discussed this before somewhere.  I think that part of Walker's problem is rhetorical and semantic.  "minor-attracted people" is a terrible relabeling during the MeToo era.

[downer]

I'd suggest taking your comments on how society treats minor-attracted people to a different thread. Stick to free speech issues here.

The far right is really up in arms about the Katz case at Princeton. Here's one published today.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/princeton-disgrace-joshua-katz/
It contains the sentence "Princeton University advances towards woke madrassah status:"
Nothing like a little Islamaphobia to spice up the reader's outrage.
I wonder why these hypocritical book burners are so upset about this particular case.

[Wahoo Redux]

I'd suggest taking your comments on how society treats minor-attracted people to a different thread. Stick to free speech issues here.

Again, I think the phrase "minor-attracted person" does sound like Walker is embracing or legitimizing pedophilia----which is obviously not the case----but no matter what, that is a very tone-deaf pseudo-scientific term for people who do the worst possible thing during an era in which we are hyper attuned to sexual violence.  We come on the heels of a great liberalizing of ideas----homosexuality was considered a mental illness as was gender dysphoria.  The stigma was lifted from drug addiction and alcoholism and people feel safe asking for help now; as a guy in recovery myself I have been eternally grateful for the support I have received from virtually everyone I've ever talked to about it; I think that is what Walker was aiming for. 

But still, imagine a book on "rape-attracted men" (which is a pathology) and how they can find acceptance and control rather than working for a cure to their pathology. 

Focus on free speech, yes, but maybe we shouldn't be accepting of everything.  And part of free speech is having an opinion about people who do the wrong things for the right reasons.

I wonder if there might have been a better venue to publish this in than a university press.  I don't know what that might be, however.

I am agnostic about whether Walker's approach works or not because it is so far outside my wheelhouse, but the timing is bad, the wording is bad, and maybe the whole idea is bad. 

[downer]

What does "accepting free speech" mean?

Do we have to agree with the speech? No.
But whatever feelings of discomfort the speech generates, and how strong our disagreement, that doesn't justify Old Dominion in pushing the professor out. Similarly for Princeton, if the Katz case is really just about Katz wrote.

I'm perfectly happy to have a full discussion of sexuality, deviance, normality, and hypocrisy, but I still don't think this is the thread to do it.

[Wahoo Redux]

The prez of Old Dominion is very cowardly, I would agree.

And this is just another example of the cancel culture hysteria running rampant on our college campuses.

[marshwiggle]

I'd suggest taking your comments on how society treats minor-attracted people to a different thread. Stick to free speech issues here.

Again, I think the phrase "minor-attracted person" does sound like Walker is embracing or legitimizing pedophilia----which is obviously not the case----but no matter what, that is a very tone-deaf pseudo-scientific term for people who do the worst possible thing during an era in which we are hyper attuned to sexual violence.  We come on the heels of a great liberalizing of ideas----homosexuality was considered a mental illness as was gender dysphoria.  The stigma was lifted from drug addiction and alcoholism and people feel safe asking for help now; as a guy in recovery myself I have been eternally grateful for the support I have received from virtually everyone I've ever talked to about it; I think that is what Walker was aiming for. 

But still, imagine a book on "rape-attracted men" (which is a pathology) and how they can find acceptance and control rather than working for a cure to their pathology. 

Part of cancel culture is around not merely whether something can be labeled "pathology", but even whether a person who wishes to change it in themselves should have access to services to do so. A simple example is obesity, and the push by many to deny the science about the health costs of obesity. It's why the ogranization changed its name from "Weight Watchers" to "WW", because caring about weight is considered by many to be inherently bad.