Cancel culture test case?

[marshwiggle]

From the Daily Mail:

Old Dominion University places trans professor, 34, on leave after interview defending pedophiles as 'Minor Attracted Persons' and saying they shouldn't be ostracized because 'they can't help their urges'
Dr. Allyn Walker was placed on administrative leave from Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia
Walker, who goes by the pronouns they/them, is the author of a book that tries to 'destigmatize' pedophilia
In a video, they said: 'A lot of people when they hear the word pedophile, they automatically assume that means sex offender. That isn't true' 
Walker thinks that pedophiles shouldn't be seen as 'immoral' because they can't help their urges
Initially, the university stood by the professor and refused to remove them from the post
They changed course this week after a swell of criticism from the public over the teacher's comments 
Change.org petition had been calling for Walker's removal from the school's staff amassed nearly 3,000 signatures

This seems like an interesting case to discuss around cancel culture on campus, partly because I would guess that most people on here are probably in agreement that the practice of pedophilia is unacceptable.

Some questions:

• Should the university defend the prof and refuse to fire or discipline?
• If the prof should be defended, what ought the prof be allowed to teach regarding this topic in classes? What points can students be required to repeat on assignments, tests, etc.?
• If the prof should be defended, what (if anything) ought activists who disagree be allowed to do when the prof teaches, gives talks, or otherwise appears on campus?
• Since the prof is trans, can people who are against the prof's employment be called transphobes by the insitution? Can they (or ought they) be accused of hate speech?
  

[Parasaurolophus]

They've done nothing wrong. What's more, they are correct: we need to be careful to distinguish between sexual attraction or arousal and abuse. (And, indeed, between what they're saying and what we think they're saying.)

But I don't see what makes this a 'test case' in your view. Left-identified people are 'cancelled' all the time--more often than right-identified people, even.

[marshwiggle]

They've done nothing wrong. What's more, they are correct: we need to be careful to distinguish between sexual attraction or arousal and abuse. (And, indeed, between what they're saying and what we think they're saying.)

But I don't see what makes this a 'test case' in your view. Left-identified people are 'cancelled' all the time--more often than right-identified people, even.

That's one of the factors that makes it a good test case; often people claim someone should be censured because what they say is on a slippery slope, or is a "dog-whistle" (in this case, for pedophiles). Does this professor's speech "harm" children?

All kinds of language around silencing people could be applied in this case. To listen to what a person says and evaluate it on its purely factual legitimacy, rather than on its potential ramifications, is the antithesis of cancel culture.

[Parasaurolophus]

They've done nothing wrong. What's more, they are correct: we need to be careful to distinguish between sexual attraction or arousal and abuse. (And, indeed, between what they're saying and what we think they're saying.)

But I don't see what makes this a 'test case' in your view. Left-identified people are 'cancelled' all the time--more often than right-identified people, even.

That's one of the factors that makes it a good test case; often people claim someone should be censured because what they say is on a slippery slope, or is a "dog-whistle" (in this case, for pedophiles). Does this professor's speech "harm" children?

All kinds of language around silencing people could be applied in this case. To listen to what a person says and evaluate it on its purely factual legitimacy, rather than on its potential ramifications, is the antithesis of cancel culture.

I wasn't aware that Milo, Murray, Stock, etc. are actually correct about the facts.

[ciao_yall]

It's hard to "destigmatize" people who "desire" to sexually engage with people who legally cannot consent.

If someone wants to turn this into an argument about desire versus action, that's a real rabbit hole.

As an example, do we all sometimes wish we could kill someone, or even fantasize about the perfect crime? Perhaps. Still, it's one thing to have a passing thought. It's another to actually obsess on it. Or say out loud or threaten it. Or do research online for the tools needed to accomplish the task. The list goes on.

Defending the desire is, in a way, defending the action.

[Parasaurolophus]

It's hard to "destigmatize" people who "desire" to sexually engage with people who legally cannot consent.

If someone wants to turn this into an argument about desire versus action, that's a real rabbit hole.

As an example, do we all sometimes wish we could kill someone, or even fantasize about the perfect crime? Perhaps. Still, it's one thing to have a passing thought. It's another to actually obsess on it. Or say out loud or threaten it. Or do research online for the tools needed to accomplish the task. The list goes on.

Defending the desire is, in a way, defending the action.

There's a real problem here, which is that someone with the desire (but who does not wish to follow through on it) will struggle to obtain professional help for it.

[mahagonny]

Left-identified people are 'cancelled' all the time--more often than right-identified people, even.

That is indeed foolish of them. If they need to express themselves, why don't they try something innocuous, like setting fire to police cruisers, buildings etc. and looting retail stores?

[ciao_yall]

It's hard to "destigmatize" people who "desire" to sexually engage with people who legally cannot consent.

If someone wants to turn this into an argument about desire versus action, that's a real rabbit hole.

As an example, do we all sometimes wish we could kill someone, or even fantasize about the perfect crime? Perhaps. Still, it's one thing to have a passing thought. It's another to actually obsess on it. Or say out loud or threaten it. Or do research online for the tools needed to accomplish the task. The list goes on.

Defending the desire is, in a way, defending the action.

There's a real problem here, which is that someone with the desire (but who does not wish to follow through on it) will struggle to obtain professional help for it.

Search for therapy - no red flags.

Search for child pornography - red flags.

[Parasaurolophus]

It's hard to "destigmatize" people who "desire" to sexually engage with people who legally cannot consent.

If someone wants to turn this into an argument about desire versus action, that's a real rabbit hole.

As an example, do we all sometimes wish we could kill someone, or even fantasize about the perfect crime? Perhaps. Still, it's one thing to have a passing thought. It's another to actually obsess on it. Or say out loud or threaten it. Or do research online for the tools needed to accomplish the task. The list goes on.

Defending the desire is, in a way, defending the action.

There's a real problem here, which is that someone with the desire (but who does not wish to follow through on it) will struggle to obtain professional help for it.

Search for therapy - no red flags.

Search for child pornography - red flags.

Yes, totally. But these people have an incredibly hard time finding someone willing to treat them, and are often reported to the cops for seeking that help (though of course no crime has been committed).

And please: let's not conflate it with pornography. It's child abusive material.

[smallcleanrat]

Define "defending the desire."

[downer]

Normally when the Daily Mail is the source, you can just ignore it. But there are YouTube videos.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the arguments, it is bizarre for someone to express those views publicly in the current political climate, unless their views are "lock up the perverts."

At one point within living memory some people who had tenure I know addressed these kinds of issues in a thoughtful way in talks, and they quickly got hate email and people writing to their Provosts reporting them for advocating child abuse. They soon decided they were not going to pursue those issues in their research or public declarations.

I'm not sure that the labeling of the speaker as "trans" has anything to do with the issue. But maybe it does.

[Wahoo Redux]

Walker makes clear that child abuse is never acceptable.  Instead, they/them advocates "child sex dolls"----which strikes me as very, very weird and the kind of thing that would only exacerbate pedophilic desire----but whatever, Walker has rocks in their/their head for saying it out loud and not expecting a violent backlash.

I would be suspicious of Walker's motivation.  It has nothing to do with trans or non-trans, however; the vast majority of pedophile offenders are straight males.

[mahagonny]

It's hard to "destigmatize" people who "desire" to sexually engage with people who legally cannot consent.

There are always some who've been deified enough by liberal American culture to get away with not just the desire but also the act (life) and then being considered cool for having done it.

https://www.vintag.es/2018/06/jimmy-page-lori-maddox.html

[ciao_yall]

Walker makes clear that child abuse is never acceptable.  Instead, they/them advocates "child sex dolls"----which strikes me as very, very weird and the kind of thing that would only exacerbate pedophilic desire----but whatever, Walker has rocks in their/their head for saying it out loud and not expecting a violent backlash.

I would be suspicious of Walker's motivation.  It has nothing to do with trans or non-trans, however; the vast majority of pedophile offenders are straight males.

What if someone sold dolls that were filled with fake blood so people could pretend to murder them? That way they could practice their violent snuff-film fantasies....

[Wahoo Redux]

Walker makes clear that child abuse is never acceptable.  Instead, they/them advocates "child sex dolls"----which strikes me as very, very weird and the kind of thing that would only exacerbate pedophilic desire----but whatever, Walker has rocks in their/their head for saying it out loud and not expecting a violent backlash.

I would be suspicious of Walker's motivation.  It has nothing to do with trans or non-trans, however; the vast majority of pedophile offenders are straight males.

What if someone sold dolls that were filled with fake blood so people could pretend to murder them? That way they could practice their violent snuff-film fantasies....

Deviant.  Def deviant.

That would be wild.

Maybe it is not so different from some of the movies we see.