Cancel culture test case?

[smallcleanrat]

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.

Wouldn't it be better to rely on data rather than intuition? How often have intuitions related to explaining or predicting human behavior been challenged by actual research?

It's not at all surprising there was strong backlash, but I can understand why someone would think it's a discussion worth having if the impetus behind it aims to find ways to prevent child abuse. Unfortunately, people have been historically terrible at twisting everything into saying "People who sexually abuse children should be allowed to do so without consequence."



I do find it puzzling that the general concept "It is possible for people to have desires and impulses which they did not choose and do not want." still gets so much resistance.

What would the world look like if all human desires were consciously chosen? Would there really be a significant number of people waking up one day and thinking, "I'm going to choose to have sexual desires I can never act upon without becoming a criminal and a social pariah. I'm locking that in now; it's definitely the right option for me."



It also seems important to be clear what is meant by "destigmatize." It doesn't have to mean saying, "There is nothing wrong with adults having sex with children." It can mean encouraging people to reconsider the notion that simply having certain thoughts (even if they are NOT acted upon) makes a person unequivocally and irredeemably evil.



And I suspect putting so much emphasis on the professor being trans (to the point of being part of the headline) is intended to stir up more outrage from people who classify anyone not cisgender and heterosexual as "deviant" or "perverted." It's the kind of story people like to point to when they say, "All this PC nonsense about acceptance and tolerance is going to result in a society that says there's nothing wrong with raping children."

[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.

Wouldn't it be better to rely on data rather than intuition? How often have intuitions related to explaining or predicting human behavior been challenged by actual research?

Of course.

IS there such research?

I am just going off what I think I know about human nature.  I doubt that having a child sex doll (my God that is a horrid, unsettling image!) is going to staunch pathological behavior any more than having child pornography will. 

Someone may do the research, but I suspect we know what we will find.

[smallcleanrat]

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.

Wouldn't it be better to rely on data rather than intuition? How often have intuitions related to explaining or predicting human behavior been challenged by actual research?

Of course.

IS there such research?

I am just going off what I think I know about human nature.  I doubt that having a child sex doll (my God that is a horrid, unsettling image!) is going to staunch pathological behavior any more than having child pornography will. 

Someone may do the research, but I suspect we know what we will find.

1) So, are you saying it is already known that accessing child pornography (which is already considered pathological/criminal behavior if it is involving real children) increases the likelihood of committing other sex crimes (like physical assault)? And is it a clear cause-and-effect (i.e. committing one type of sex crime exacerbates desire, thus increasing likelihood of committing other types of sex crime)? Is there research on THAT, or is this statement also based on intuition?

2) I don't know much about the literature in this area except that I've read that it is often difficult to conduct such research in the first place.  And that this is often due to people insisting that they already KNOW effective intervention is impossible and accusing the researchers of being secretly motivated by a desire to normalize rather than prevent child abuse.

Could be true, but how do you really know?

3) I would guess that what data is available skews heavily towards people who have actually acted on their desires and committed crimes.

How would people who have the thoughts, but have not committed the actions be represented in the research? They would have a very strong motive for keeping such thoughts secret.

Even if they wanted to say, "I keep having these thoughts that I know are wrong. I don't want to be this way. I need help," who would they turn to when the prevalent attitude is that they are untreatable and permanently defective?

[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.

Wouldn't it be better to rely on data rather than intuition? How often have intuitions related to explaining or predicting human behavior been challenged by actual research?

Of course.

IS there such research?

I am just going off what I think I know about human nature.  I doubt that having a child sex doll (my God that is a horrid, unsettling image!) is going to staunch pathological behavior any more than having child pornography will. 

Someone may do the research, but I suspect we know what we will find.

1) So, are you saying it is already known that accessing child pornography (which is already considered pathological/criminal behavior if it is involving real children) increases the likelihood of committing other sex crimes (like physical assault)? And is it a clear cause-and-effect (i.e. committing one type of sex crime exacerbates desire, thus increasing likelihood of committing other types of sex crime)? Is there research on THAT, or is this statement also based on intuition?

2) I don't know much about the literature in this area except that I've read that it is often difficult to conduct such research in the first place. 

Do'ya just want to argue?

I dunno, man.  I suspect child porn does inspire pathology, but I would not stake my life on it.

The all-knowing Wikipedia article records all three clinical positions on the subject.

If we can definitely prove a child sex doll decreases abuse, fine by me as long as I know nothing about the actual scenarios involved.  If "destigmatizing" the pathology decreases abuse, fine by me.  Destigmatizing substance abuse as a moral failing and legitimizing it as a disease has certainly helped addicts. 

Maybe you should do the research and prove it.

[smallcleanrat]

Do'ya just want to argue?

I dunno, man.  I suspect child porn does inspire pathology, but I would not stake my life on it.

The all-knowing Wikipedia article records all three clinical positions on the subject.

If we can definitely prove a child sex doll decreases abuse, fine by me as long as I know nothing about the actual scenarios involved.  If "destigmatizing" the pathology decreases abuse, fine by me.  Destigmatizing substance abuse as a moral failing and legitimizing it as a disease has certainly helped addicts. 

Maybe you should do the research and prove it.

Uh...I wasn't trying to be contrary just for the sake of it, if that's what you mean.

And I wasn't even trying to say you're wrong in that the intervention described wouldn't be effective, if that's how it seemed. I was questioning making a judgment in advance.

Sorry if it came across as a personal attack.

[Parasaurolophus]

It's perhaps worth observing that it's entirely routine for us to sexualize children. There are the child beauty pageants, of course, but also think of teen movies (which often feature the teens nude and having fumbly sex--that would be child pornography proper, since it's a sexualized depiction of children), remember Britney Spears's early career, recall the internet countdown until Emma Watson turned 18, google the frequency of 'teen' in porn searches, or think of just how utterly common 'schoolgirl' or babysitter (or step-parent, for that matter) fantasies are.

That's all sexual desire for children. But it's not all abusive.

In other words, we might want to take a long, hard look in the mirror before we melt down about people who admit to finding children sexually arousing. They're not as alien--or as rare--as we might think.

[Wahoo Redux]

Do'ya just want to argue?

I dunno, man.  I suspect child porn does inspire pathology, but I would not stake my life on it.

The all-knowing Wikipedia article records all three clinical positions on the subject.

If we can definitely prove a child sex doll decreases abuse, fine by me as long as I know nothing about the actual scenarios involved.  If "destigmatizing" the pathology decreases abuse, fine by me.  Destigmatizing substance abuse as a moral failing and legitimizing it as a disease has certainly helped addicts. 

Maybe you should do the research and prove it.

Uh...I wasn't trying to be contrary just for the sake of it, if that's what you mean.

And I wasn't even trying to say you're wrong in that the intervention described wouldn't be effective, if that's how it seemed. I was questioning making a judgment in advance.

Sorry if it came across as a personal attack.

No, I'm cool.

I am for whatever works and I am for whatever the empirical science tells us.

I just think we are in the era in which we understand that image affects how we think.  The whole point of feminism is to help men conceive of women as equal human beings, hence the challenges to the ways in which women have traditionally been portrayed ("The Gaze" and all that).  And we are very aware, for instance, about how images of girls' bodies affect men and women, particularly young women.  We are aware how attitudes may affect the way we view rape. In other words, sure, I will believe what the scientists tell me, but I have to think that kiddie porn is going to affect the ways in which certain adults view children and probably affect how adults behave.  In general, I avoid notions of "common sense" (since it is so often wrong) but I think this is a common sense scenario.   

I think that Parasaurolophus' observation about realistic adult desire is well taken, but I might differentiate between teen and child imagery.  Our reproductive clocks start pretty early, and it has only been a couple thousand years since we have been "civilized."  Our great-great-great-ad infinitum forbearers would have had to reproduce early and often to survive----so Britney Spears has been designed by nature to be a sex symbol.  Really, it is only in the last couple hundred years that we stopped marrying early.  We have very recently imposed arbitrary chronological age restrictions (which, just so certain posters know, is a good thing in our society).  I think what Para was talking about was, frankly, our biological design working.

Seems to me that pedophilia is something different.

[Wahoo Redux]

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

So you give us a British rock star from the hedonistic '70s counter-culture scene.  You think that is "liberal?"

Oh buddy, you lost your marbles.

Let me introduce you to Representative Matt Gaetz and Mr. Roy Moore.

BTW, what is the relationship of these women to Donald Trump?

4.1   Jessica Leeds (1980s)
4.2   Kristin Anderson (1990s)
4.3   Lisa Boyne (1996)
4.4   Cathy Heller (1997)
4.5   Temple Taggart McDowell (1997)
4.6   Amy Dorris (1997)
4.7   Karena Virginia (1998)
4.8   Karen Johnson (early 2000s)
4.9   Mindy McGillivray (2003)
4.10   Rachel Crooks (2005)
4.11   Natasha Stoynoff (2005)
4.12   Juliet Huddy (2005 or 2006)
4.13   Jessica Drake (2006)
4.14   Ninni Laaksonen (2006)
4.15   Cassandra Searles (2013)
5   Pageant dressing room visits
5.1   Mariah Billado, Victoria Hughes, and three other Miss Teen USA contestants (1997)
5.2   Bridget Sullivan (2000)
5.3   Tasha Dixon (2001)
5.4   Unnamed contestants (2001)
5.5   Samantha Holvey (2006)

[mahagonny]

Well you missed a couple of things.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/the-40-greatest-led-zeppelin-songs-of-all-time-154694/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rolling-stone/

ETA: Abducting a 14 year old girl for a sex salve is not hedonism; it's criminal behavior.

So you give us a British rock star...

Lori Mattix was American.

[Caracal]

This is what happens when you try to argue with political slogans. What does "cancel culture" even mean anymore? If it just describes people getting in trouble for things they have said or done because their employers bow to public pressure, that's so broad as to be meaningless. This isn't something that was invented four years ago. I also find it odd that that this is something one is for or against. It depends what someone is being "cancelled" for and who is doing the "cancelling." This case strikes me as a pretty clear violation of academic freedom, but it it isn't at all the same as someone getting fired from their job at a baseball team for sending explicit texts to coworkers or something.

[Wahoo Redux]

Well you missed a couple of things.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/the-40-greatest-led-zeppelin-songs-of-all-time-154694/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rolling-stone/

ETA: Abducting a 14 year old girl for a sex salve is not hedonism; it's criminal behavior.

So you give us a British rock star...

Lori Mattix was American.

Yes, I know who Mattix is.  She managed to extend her infamy into Rock mythology and fattened it until she was well into adulthood.  Almost Famous is loosely based on Crowe's experiences with Led Zeppelin and Mattix.

The point, my friend, is twofold:

1)  First cast out the beam from your eye, and then you will see clearly to cast out the splinter from the eye of your brother.  You wanna point fingers based on political orientation? Fine.  The conservatives have quite a few beams to point out, particularly the Drumpf family.

2)  Conservatives of the era have made a successful industry of getting some people angry at "liberals."  A great many conservatives seem to have no other agenda but to stoke the culture wars.  They have empty heads but for their hysteria against anyone not as zealous as they are.  This is good old fashion fascism in the making. 

It may be too late for you, but fight it.

[mahagonny]

Actually, regarding the infamous Trump conversation where he said  something like 'if you're a big deal, a star, with lots of  money, they let you do it' (taking advantage of women sexually) would probably be something Jimmy Page would agree with. It's a true fact if an unpleasant one. And I suspect at this late date both of them have mixed feelings (including a bit of regret) about what they did when they younger and more virile.

[Wahoo Redux]

Trump has never expressed regret for anything.

[mahagonny]

Trump has never expressed regret for anything.

I was surprised to read it myself.

https://www.thelist.com/240034/the-tragic-death-of-donald-trumps-brother-fred-trump-jr/

[smallcleanrat]

This is what happens when you try to argue with political slogans. What does "cancel culture" even mean anymore? If it just describes people getting in trouble for things they have said or done because their employers bow to public pressure, that's so broad as to be meaningless. This isn't something that was invented four years ago. I also find it odd that that this is something one is for or against. It depends what someone is being "cancelled" for and who is doing the "cancelling." This case strikes me as a pretty clear violation of academic freedom, but it it isn't at all the same as someone getting fired from their job at a baseball team for sending explicit texts to coworkers or something.

I guess it's kin to labelling anything and everything an "attack on free speech" regardless of whether the government is involved or even whether anyone is actually being censored/fired/boycotted/whatever.

I once listened to my dad rant about "the liberal agenda to eradicate free speech" based on something he somewhat remembered reading about "a law against saying 'man and wife'; if you say it, they throw you in jail!" I don't remember the details, but the gist of the real story was something about replacing the use of the phrase "man and wife" in legal documents to reflect the fact that, due to legalization of same-sex marriage, a married couple does not necessarily consist of a "man and wife." I recall not being able to find anything about being thrown in jail for non-compliance, so that was possibly some slippery-slope style catastrophizing.



I think the bowing-to-public-pressure element is the most significant in identifying something as a "cancel culture" issue, but I don't know if that's always the case.

I don't think use of the term always involves an implication that an individual or an institution is violating some law or policy.
Sometimes I think the term is used as an expression of contempt for the specific public opinions driving such pressure. As in, "People are upset about that?!? That's ridiculous and it's even more ridiculous to expect everyone else to play along."

Suppose a TV show's writers tone down aspects of a character that viewers have complained is an offensive racial stereotype. Some people will cry "cancel culture" and may even begin predicting the death of artistic expression based on their perception that contemporary culture encourages people to find everything offensive and to demand all of society to bow to their whims.



I do get the impression the phrase is used more by conservatives annoyed by "political correctness", but that's just a notion gleaned from personal experience.

Suppose the writers for a children's TV show decide to scrap a storyline which would have featured a same-sex couple due to a high volume of complaints that doing so would be "indoctrinating" children by "normalizing deviant sexual behavior."

I can imagine a lot of commentary from liberals/progressives expressing disgust and anger about the writers "catering to the demands of bigots" or something. But I would be surprised if they actually used the term "cancel culture."