Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[mahagonny]

This is a weird sentence: "Every effort must be made not to recruit women into engineering, but rather to recruit and demand more of men to become engineers." - Yenor

Not recruiting people doesn't take effort. But he is right if he says recruiting more men into STEM fields is a fine idea, (POC!) or if he says division of labor in a marriage can also be fine. People will choose.

Do today's feminists want 'less male achievement' as Yenor claims? I don't think they can stop us, but some of them seem to never to react to anything accomplished by a man with much other than sneering about privilege. My goodness: why aren't they better liked?

Let all the people who want to raise scholarship money for their favorite group continue. Fine.

[Wahoo Redux]

Plenty people like feminists, mahagonny.  Nutjob hardcore conservatives don't.

Feminists do not want less male achievement; don't let an idiot like Yenor warp your mind even more.

A great many dudes, like myself, are feminists.

[mahagonny]

Plenty people like feminists, mahagonny.  Nutjob hardcore conservatives don't.

Feminists do not want less male achievement; don't let an idiot like Yenor warp your mind even more.

A great many dudes, like myself, are feminists.

There's no equality of outcomes though. We can't all grow a baby in our abdomen.

Sure, I like them as individuals. We play pool, cribbage, drink together.

ETA: Here's a conversation. The feminist says they've come a long way in Scandinavia, but they're not perfect yet. What is perfection? That's what tires me out. Questions like that one. When is anything perfect, or likely to become something closer to perfect than it is now? We're lucky when things don't get worse. These people are barking up the wrong tree. Women can do anything they want. The more difficult job is deciding what you really want, and how much dues you'll pay to get there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddzf9Mm4hdY

In fact, your post illustrates that Prof Yenor, despite his podium and brashness, can do very little to stop women from their fulfillment.

[Wahoo Redux]

I don't plan on attending, but maybe someone here would be interested.

Students and Freedom of Expression on Campus CHE virtual seminar.

Upcoming, January 25, at 2 p.m., ET.

Today's students are challenging free-speech norms and are more likely than older generations to support restrictions that limit offensive speech. What's more, the rise of social media, new sexual-harassment policies, and demands for more racial diversity and inclusiveness have sometimes complicated free expression on campus. In this environment, how can colleges promote open inquiry and discussion while balancing changing attitudes?

Join us for a virtual forum that brings together Michael S. Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, and other experts to share their perspectives on these topics:

How is free expression evolving on college campuses?
How do college leaders respond to claims that their institutions have become unwelcoming places for certain views?
How can colleges mitigate potential conflicts when they do arise?

[mahagonny]

I don't plan on attending, but maybe someone here would be interested.

Students and Freedom of Expression on Campus CHE virtual seminar.

Upcoming, January 25, at 2 p.m., ET.

Today's students are challenging free-speech norms and are more likely than older generations to support restrictions that limit offensive speech. What's more, the rise of social media, new sexual-harassment policies, and demands for more racial diversity and inclusiveness have sometimes complicated free expression on campus. In this environment, how can colleges promote open inquiry and discussion while balancing changing attitudes?

Join us for a virtual forum that brings together Michael S. Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, and other experts to share their perspectives on these topics:

How is free expression evolving on college campuses?
How do college leaders respond to claims that their institutions have become unwelcoming places for certain views?
How can colleges mitigate potential conflicts when they do arise?

I appreciate knowing about it, but most likely I'll be working at that time.
Prediction (I would be happy to find out I'm mistaken): If the question even comes up, it will be easy, in most cases, for the presenters to claim that students and faculty with conservative views are absolutely free to express themselves on campus. But it would be impossible in most cases to claim that respect for conservatives is fostered. This despite recent reports that liberals have some outlandishly untrue beliefs...https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum/social-studies/civics-101/1242605-police-brutality-against-black-people-happens-way-less-than-public-thinks ...which is not worthy of being reported, according to Huffpost, Mother Jones, Guardian or my schools' brilliant team of *diversity* gurus.
Cultivating willful ignorance, and the political capitalizing from it, are their plan.
So they'll just pretend the question doesn't exist.
Lefty agenda-pushing on campus is the norm. We all know that.
ETA --- Example of a 'conservative position': the Waukesha massacre was carried out by an anti-white person racist. (Which of course is obviously true, observable by anyone.)
When stating a fact identifies you as a conservative...

[nebo113]

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

Or drinking.

We need to approach each other with more tolerance.

Does that include those whom you referred to on another thread as "dead or in dementia" for voting for H or T in 2016?  Or like T, were you merely being humorous?

[mahagonny]

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

Or drinking.

We need to approach each other with more tolerance.

Does that include those whom you referred to on another thread as "dead or in dementia" for voting for H or T in 2016?  Or like T, were you merely being humorous?

That's what you thought i meant? Wow. I may have expressed myself poorly.
They were not in dementia when they voted, but in 2024, eight years later, many who voted in 2016 will either be deceased or very old and therefore less likely to vote. At the same time, many new young voters come along in eight years. So to the question 'who would vote for either Hillary or Trump in 2024 who didn't before, and who would not vote for either hillary or Trump who did in 2016' the answer could well be many 'many.' It's never really a replay.

[Wahoo Redux]

Florida School District Cancels Civil Rights Talk b/c CRT

Cancel culture cuts both ways.

[marshwiggle]

Florida School District Cancels Civil Rights Talk b/c CRT

Cancel culture cuts both ways.

A fascinating quotation from the article:

Less than 24 hours before Butler was informed of the cancellation, a state Senate committee advanced legislation Tuesday at the behest of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis to block public schools and private businesses from making people feel "discomfort" when they're taught about race.

The double-edged "discomfort" sword.

[mahagonny]

Florida School District Cancels Civil Rights Talk b/c CRT

Cancel culture cuts both ways.

A fascinating quotation from the article:

Less than 24 hours before Butler was informed of the cancellation, a state Senate committee advanced legislation Tuesday at the behest of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis to block public schools and private businesses from making people feel "discomfort" when they're taught about race.

The double-edged "discomfort" sword.

i'm hearing about Professor Butler for the first time, so i don't know anything about him or his lecture. But the (leftist) educators who see themselves as groundbreaking with respect to the proper teaching of racial history in the USA are absolutely in favor of government controlling (censoring) speech.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/inequality/pass-an-anti-racist-constitutional-amendment/

"The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with "racist ideas" and "public official" clearly defined). It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas."

[mahagonny]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/incoming-georgetown-law-official-placed-on-administrative-leave-for-tweets-about-supreme-court-pick/ar-AATkPud

[mahagonny]

Another news item on our topic: https://abcnews.go.com/US/whoopi-goldberg-suspended-view-weeks-holocaust-comments/story?id=82613265

If I understand correctly the issue is Goldberg saw European Jews as belonging to the same race as the German non-Jews. Whereas, she is being found wrong because the Nazis themselves considered the Jews an inferior race. I don't see why Goldberg can't express the belief that they were members of the same race when biologists reject the idea of race altogether. Of course, that would be inconsistent of her, because she's one of those who are fixated on keeping the idea of race alive in order to somehow advance the success, standard of living, etc. for American Black people. But that wouldn't make it false.
Of course, the Nazis believe the human race should not include breeding that included Jews as they were inferior genetically.

People in the USA who maintain one race is inferior to another genetically, if they exist, are practically never heard from. I can't think of any. It is true that Asians outperform Caucasians scholastically in the USA, but that is attributed to more vigorous study habits. In order to believe Caucasians are inferior to Asians genetically you would have to believe that if both 'races' studied exactly the same amount the Asians would still outperform.

[marshwiggle]

Another news item on our topic: https://abcnews.go.com/US/whoopi-goldberg-suspended-view-weeks-holocaust-comments/story?id=82613265

If I understand correctly the issue is Goldberg saw European Jews as belonging to the same race as the German non-Jews.

Even hearing her trying to explain herself is ridiculous. "THEY'RE ALL WHITE PEOPLE!!!"

"racism" = "white people good, black people bad" according to Whoopi.

To someone with only a hammer, every problem is a nail.

[mahagonny]

Another news item on our topic: https://abcnews.go.com/US/whoopi-goldberg-suspended-view-weeks-holocaust-comments/story?id=82613265

If I understand correctly the issue is Goldberg saw European Jews as belonging to the same race as the German non-Jews.

Even hearing her trying to explain herself is ridiculous. "THEY'RE ALL WHITE PEOPLE!!!"

"racism" = "white people good, black people bad" according to Whoopi.

To someone with only a hammer, every problem is a nail.

Well, why wouldn't that apply to the Kyle Rittenhouse incident then?

But Hannity did defend her, while accusing the liberal media of intolerance of diverse viewpoints. Eventually, of course the cancel culture devours people who have seen themselves as on the same side politically.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/hannity-whoopi-goldberg-change-channel

[smallcleanrat]

Another news item on our topic: https://abcnews.go.com/US/whoopi-goldberg-suspended-view-weeks-holocaust-comments/story?id=82613265

If I understand correctly the issue is Goldberg saw European Jews as belonging to the same race as the German non-Jews.

Even hearing her trying to explain herself is ridiculous. "THEY'RE ALL WHITE PEOPLE!!!"

"racism" = "white people good, black people bad" according to Whoopi.

To someone with only a hammer, every problem is a nail.

I read her statements attempting to clarify her point. I read the article regarding the banning of the book Maus from school libraries which was what prompted the discussion. I still don't understand what she was driving at. What broader point was she trying to make?

The article about the book banning cited "vulgar" language and nudity as the reason. I don't know how saying 'the Holocaust was not about race' is supposed to speak to that (though some of the arguments supporting the ban are also worth a raised eyebrow or two).



I don't exactly consider myself well-versed in the concepts and vocabulary related to the history and sociology of racism. So every time I read a story like this, I have to puzzle over it a bit to try to understand the different viewpoints being expressed.

But my take on the objections to a dismissive statement like, 'Well, they were all white people, so it wasn't about race' is that it seems to minimize the extent to which the Nazis targeted and persecuted the Jews, as well as the reasons they did so.

I think it might have some parallels to why people get upset when someone says the American Civil War was about state's rights and not slavery?

It can be true that categorization of different races has little to no relation to biological differences. But that does not mean that the consequences of these categorizations aren't real. So saying 'racial classifications have no grounding in biology' is not equivalent to saying 'racism does not exist.'



Goldberg says something along the lines of 'well, since the difference between a white Jew and a white non-Jew can't be seen, the Nazis really had to work to identify them by digging into records and such'.  Again, I don't see why she thinks this is such an important distinction.

I suspect she would not consider something like the one-drop rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule#Antebellum_conditions) as 'not about race' just because to discriminate against someone who 'passes' for white but has a black ancestor might require some record-digging.



She wasn't 'cancelled' so much as put in time-out for a couple of weeks and encouraged to use the time to 'reflect.' Perhaps it's just an empty, 'virtue-signaling' gesture, but is it really 'canceling' someone?

Hasn't Fox News also suspended hosts in the past? And don't they market themselves as the antithesis of the liberal media?