Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[dismalist]

Tweets? The medium is the message.

[marshwiggle]

Why would one retweet a statement unless one were amused by it, offended by it, or in agreement with it?

Given these different possibilities, is there some moral imperative that someone indicate which purpose one has for each retweet?

I have never had a Twitter account myself.

Me either. Twitter kinds of seems like the cesspit of social media, which gets the most immediate and unfiltered garbage of human rantings. It is the antithesis of rational, respectful discussion.

[ciao_yall]

Why would one retweet a statement unless one were amused by it, offended by it, or in agreement with it?

Given these different possibilities, is there some moral imperative that someone indicate which purpose one has for each retweet?

Seems reasonable.

I posted something on FB. My husband's friend's wife (HFW) replied that she disagreed with it and posted a link to an article from a respected publication that she claimed would explain her position.

I read the article and responded that the article did not say what she claimed it said - in fact, it was the opposite. She got extremely huffy with me and all my friends on the thread. Said that we were attacking her and not letting her share her point of view. I (and we) said um, the responses are open - just say what you want to say instead of going on blast.

Tried to drag our husbands into it, the whole 9 yards.

Good thing I never liked them much in the first place.

[Wahoo Redux]

Why would one retweet a statement unless one were amused by it, offended by it, or in agreement with it?

Given these different possibilities, is there some moral imperative that someone indicate which purpose one has for each retweet?

Only if you want your purpose to be clear.

[marshwiggle]

Why would one retweet a statement unless one were amused by it, offended by it, or in agreement with it?

Given these different possibilities, is there some moral imperative that someone indicate which purpose one has for each retweet?

Only if you want your purpose to be clear.

This is what's so destructive about social media; it's all about how popular an idea or position is, rather than how well-supported it is. The concept of someone potentially playing Devil's advocate, or presenting an idea with which they may not totally agree but which raises some important issues is blasphemy.

Visceral responses and gut reactions are all that matters. And the more instantaneous the response the better.

[ciao_yall]

Why would one retweet a statement unless one were amused by it, offended by it, or in agreement with it?

Given these different possibilities, is there some moral imperative that someone indicate which purpose one has for each retweet?

Only if you want your purpose to be clear.

This is what's so destructive about social media; it's all about how popular an idea or position is, rather than how well-supported it is. The concept of someone potentially playing Devil's advocate, or presenting an idea with which they may not totally agree but which raises some important issues is blasphemy.

Visceral responses and gut reactions are all that matters. And the more instantaneous the response the better.

I don't know what online crowds you run with. Most posts function as echo chambers. Posters are generally assumed to agree with Tweets, Reposts, etc that they share within their own circles unless they clearly say why not up front.

If someone wants to post an alternative perspective, they are welcome to do so but should be prepared to support their positions with facts and nuance. 

[Wahoo Redux]

Why would one retweet a statement unless one were amused by it, offended by it, or in agreement with it?

Given these different possibilities, is there some moral imperative that someone indicate which purpose one has for each retweet?

Only if you want your purpose to be clear.

This is what's so destructive about social media; it's all about how popular an idea or position is, rather than how well-supported it is. The concept of someone potentially playing Devil's advocate, or presenting an idea with which they may not totally agree but which raises some important issues is blasphemy.

Visceral responses and gut reactions are all that matters. And the more instantaneous the response the better.

You are kind of a guy who free associates with ethical considerations a lot, (accidentally) creating strawman statements.

I simply meant that if one retweets a controversial statement without some sort of explanation or context, most people will assume that one supports the original tweet whether or not one actually does.

You have a wild brain, Marshy.

[mahagonny]

What she re-tweeted is an egregiously foolish post, but suspending somebody from a sorority for it seems excessive--and does somewhat open them to a charge of treating support for BLM as something of a shibboleth.  This is one of those cases where it's hard to say that either side comes out looking very good.

Respectfully disagree. Despite Candace Owens' shrill style of communications, she raises excellent points:

What has BLM done to actually help the black community? They've raised a lot of money, and so far their only goals are to get democrats elected, again, though they have solved nothing in the cities they run, and make their executives rich. one of whom has already retired comfortably. She claims her work has been done. What work?

Does BLM actually even know what they want other than that? Abolishing the police is a fantasy. No one's going to do that, and it was only a matter of time before the phrase would become a forgotten failed slogan.

Black Americans are feeling pain. We get that. But the question is still what to do about it. So BLM is pretty much a weak emulation of the civil rights movements of the 60's which had specific goals. It's mimicry. You almost feel sorry for them. they're fixated on how 'whiteness' is ruining their lives, while seemingly oblivious of what they might do for each other, together. Years ago 'black lives matter' was an idea that was missing. Not so today.

As Joe Biden has admitted, people who want to vote are absolutely free to. 'Voter suppression' is more of a rallying cry from people like Stacey Abrams to get people motivated to vote. And probably works. Well, she's not stupid.

Apropos of all this: requiring people to say the phrase 'Black Lives Matter' is a pretentious power grab.
It has been a shibboleth. If you don't like Trump's combative style there's a video on youtube where the genteel Mike Pence foils the ultimatum in calm reasonable language. If they want to bait you into endorsing their ideas (no more 'nuclear family requirement, etc)  by requiring you to say the phrase 'black lives matter' the are prompting the response they get, including repudiation.
Owens has had a black lives matter leader on her show. She gives everyone a turn. Kendi refused Larry Elder's invitation, calling it a 'minstrel show.' Among other invitations. Why does one get away with being a lauded academic with striking new ideas who's afraid to defend them in a debate? That's not dissemination of knowledge. It's politics, special privilege.

I do agree with you that suspending someone from a sorority for this seems excessive. And I guess Lauer solved the problem for herself by finding like minded classmates to associate with.

Summary: the left today doesn't so much censor ideas they don't like as it intentionally drowns them out.

[mahagonny]

I saw this in a tweet the other day:

Conservatives: My views are being censored!

Me: Wait, your views in favor of lower taxes are being censored?

Conservatives: No, not those views.

Me: So is it your views in favor of less government regulation?

Conservatives: No, not those views either.

Me: So what view are being censored?

Conservatives (laugh nervously): Oh....you know.

If we substitute 'punish, harass and ostracize' people for holding views that oppose popular new lefty ones for 'censor' same then this would have been a good answer:  https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/12/29/in_scotland_theyll_take_the_woke_road_809363.html
So I'm puzzled at what your post is meant to convey. Yes, you can express your centrist, non-leftist views if you're willing to submit to abuse and detrimental consequences in your career.

Now it's time for lawsuits.

[Wahoo Redux]

If we substitute 'punish, harass and ostracize' people for holding views that oppose popular new lefty ones for 'censor' same then this would have been a good answer: 

Now it's time for lawsuits.

As long as you also acknowledge that this is righty de facto policy too.

[mahagonny]

If we substitute 'punish, harass and ostracize' people for holding views that oppose popular new lefty ones for 'censor' same then this would have been a good answer: 

Now it's time for lawsuits.

As long as you also acknowledge that this is righty de facto policy too.

If someone shows examples. Nobody among those on the right that I admire is doing anything like that. And there are plenty. McWhorter, Loury, Coleman Hughes, Owens, Kendall Qualls, Jason Whitlock, Jason Reilly, Shelby Steele, Carol Swain, Tim Scott.

As I posted, Owens' response to the controversy was to have a BLM leader on her program for what she termed 'a very important conversation.'

Bill Maher claims to be a liberal (it sounds more and more like a confession) but gives the most radical left ideas in circulation today a good healthy scrutiny, which they tend not to survive. Then he invites people on his show who promote them, AOC, for example. Where'd she go?

[marshwiggle]

Why would one retweet a statement unless one were amused by it, offended by it, or in agreement with it?

Given these different possibilities, is there some moral imperative that someone indicate which purpose one has for each retweet?

Only if you want your purpose to be clear.

This is what's so destructive about social media; it's all about how popular an idea or position is, rather than how well-supported it is. The concept of someone potentially playing Devil's advocate, or presenting an idea with which they may not totally agree but which raises some important issues is blasphemy.

Visceral responses and gut reactions are all that matters. And the more instantaneous the response the better.

You are kind of a guy who free associates with ethical considerations a lot, (accidentally) creating strawman statements.

I've always assumed that in any kind of academic forum, the "free association" with "ethical considerations", (a.k.a looking at the big picture and wider implications), would be kind of normal.

And if "strawman statements" means creating sample scenarios of where certain ideas, procedures, etc. might lead, again that's pretty standard acedemic debate.

I simply meant that if one retweets a controversial statement without some sort of explanation or context, most people will assume that one supports the original tweet whether or not one actually does.

And my point is that the whole idea of feeling compelled to "comment" on something by simply indicating agreement or disagreement with an idea without adding any original perspective suggests that public discourse has largely been replaced by opinion polling.
Even among academics and journalists, who used to be relied upon to make some effort at objectivity and nuance rather than simply adopting the slogans and talking points of one ideology or another.

You have a wild brain, Marshy.

Admit it. If this were an echo chamber of progressives, without any dissenting views, you'd find it boring.

[apl68]

Pulling back from the narrow liberal vs. conservative divide, I can't help noticing that "cancel culture" seems to have engulfed some unexpected subjects.  J.K. Rowling for one, who is nobody's definition of a cultural or political conservative apologist, has undergone a striking reversal of fortune at the hands of people who were once her admirers over one specific issue.

[dismalist]

Why would one retweet a statement unless one were amused by it, offended by it, or in agreement with it?

Given these different possibilities, is there some moral imperative that someone indicate which purpose one has for each retweet?

Only if you want your purpose to be clear.

This is what's so destructive about social media; it's all about how popular an idea or position is, rather than how well-supported it is. The concept of someone potentially playing Devil's advocate, or presenting an idea with which they may not totally agree but which raises some important issues is blasphemy.

Visceral responses and gut reactions are all that matters. And the more instantaneous the response the better.

Invoking Brandolini's Law "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it." That's a big understatement, by the way.

Twitter is great for the first part -- broadcasting bullshit,  and terrible for the second part -- refuting it.

Hell, even this discussion board is better than Twitter, on average! :-)

[Wahoo Redux]

Sorry if this has been posted already.

CHE: When Professors Offend Students