Cancel culture test case?

[marshwiggle]

Walker steps down

So do people here feel this counts as cancel culture or not? (Was the prof "cancelled"?) If so, why? If not, why not?

[Parasaurolophus]

Walker steps down

So do people here feel this counts as cancel culture or not? (Was the prof "cancelled"?) If so, why? If not, why not?

Yes, it's a "cancellation". The calls to terminate this professor's employment differ from many of the cases typically offered in that they clearly are rooted in a mischaracterization of the professor's views and arguments (which careful examination should reveal to be basically correct, as I understand them without having read the book).

[marshwiggle]

Walker steps down

So do people here feel this counts as cancel culture or not? (Was the prof "cancelled"?) If so, why? If not, why not?

Yes, it's a "cancellation". The calls to terminate this professor's employment differ from many of the cases typically offered in that they clearly are rooted in a mischaracterization of the professor's views and arguments (which careful examination should reveal to be basically correct, as I understand them without having read the book).

Do you have another example of a case where someone being *terminated was not based on a mischaracterization? (I agree, BTW, from what is quoted it seems that the prof's claims are all reasonable; the outrage stems from the suggestion of what opponents claim it suggests.)


*Technically it was a resignation, but

"We have concluded that this outcome is the best way to move forward," university President Brian Hemphill said in the statement.

[Parasaurolophus]

Depends on what you mean by 'terminated', but plenty of opposition to (and the resulting disinvitations of) Milo, Murray, et al. is based on entirely accurate characterizations of their views.

Colin McGinn likes to think he was "cancelled", but he was forced out for things he did--viz., sexual harassment.

Perhaps a better example is the NYT editor whose piss-poor judgement led to that op-ed being published.

[Wahoo Redux]

Cancel culture has always existed.  The Age of Information simply accelerated it.

[marshwiggle]

Depends on what you mean by 'terminated', but plenty of opposition to (and the resulting disinvitations of) Milo, Murray, et al. is based on entirely accurate characterizations of their views.

If I understand, then your distinction is between people whose views people find offensive, (in which "cancelling" is justified), and people whose reputed views  people find offensive, (in which "cancelling" may not be justified). Would that be correct? In other words, as long as the offense is based on a correct understanding of someone's views, calling for the person to be cancelled is legitimate?

[Parasaurolophus]

No, I have not outlined any necessary or sufficient conditions for when it's appropriate, though yes, I do believe it can be.

What I'm saying, instead, is that if the person in question does not, in fact, hold or express the views you're "cancelling" them for, then your attempt at "cancellation" is clearly unjustified.

[smallcleanrat]

I took Parasaurolophus's point to be that anyone who thinks "This person needs to be 'canceled' because they promote X." isn't even following their own rule if the person does NOT promote X.

Premise 1: A person should be "cancelled" if they promote X.
Premise 2: Professor A promotes X.
Conclusion: Professor A should be cancelled.

If Professor A does not, in fact, promote X, the most obvious error here is that premise 2 is not true. Thus, even by the logic of the person pushing for cancellation, cancellation is not warranted in this case.

Pointing that out doesn't require acceptance of Premise 1.

[marshwiggle]

No, I have not outlined any necessary or sufficient conditions for when it's appropriate, though yes, I do believe it can be.

What I'm saying, instead, is that if the person in question does not, in fact, hold or express the views you're "cancelling" them for, then your attempt at "cancellation" is clearly unjustified.

With the current example, if Walker had not said:

"I want to be extremely clear that child sexual abuse is never ever okay."

but had instead said that "child sexual abuse is illegal" without actually saying whether or not that's a bad thing, would the cancellation have been justified?

I'm trying to get at some of those "sufficient conditions for when it's appropriate"; specifically related to what the prof appears to believe (or not believe, as the case may be).

[smallcleanrat]

No, I have not outlined any necessary or sufficient conditions for when it's appropriate, though yes, I do believe it can be.

What I'm saying, instead, is that if the person in question does not, in fact, hold or express the views you're "cancelling" them for, then your attempt at "cancellation" is clearly unjustified.

With the current example, if Walker had not said:

"I want to be extremely clear that child sexual abuse is never ever okay."

but had instead said that "child sexual abuse is illegal" without actually saying whether or not that's a bad thing, would the cancellation have been justified?

I'm trying to get at some of those "sufficient conditions for when it's appropriate"; specifically related to what the prof appears to believe (or not believe, as the case may be).

I'm  not clear what type of scenario you are setting up with this hypothetical.

Is your question "Would the cancellation have been justified if Walker had NOT explicitly condemned child sexual abuse?"

Is the hypothetical that Walker is asked whether he is condoning child sexual abuse and their response is simply "child sexual abuse is illegal?"

Or perhaps says something like, "My personal opinions aren't relevant to the question of whether my scholarship is sound?" (which seems to me less dodgy than merely evading the question if the intention is to argue for keeping their personal value judgments out of the debate)

[Wahoo Redux]

Walker's downfall is at least partly semantic.  Their phrasing of "Minor-Attracted People" sounds tremendously alarming even as several posters, myself included, have pointed out that they are explicitly condemning child abuse.  Then Walker threw in "Dignity," which is simply a concept most people will not accept regarding pedophilia. 

As someone attuned to semantics (note the choice of pronouns), Walker should have been smarter about the presentation of their idea.  I totally understand that Walker wanted to destigmatize good people who control their deviant sexual drives, so maybe something along the lines of 'helping pedophiles control themselves' might have been more palatable.  Imagine something like "Rape-Attracted Men and their Quest for Dignity"; there are a number of men who are stimulated by the concept of rape even if they never act upon it.  Do we want rape fantasies associated with "dignity?"

We live in hyperbolic times.  Walker might have considered that.

[Parasaurolophus]

No, I have not outlined any necessary or sufficient conditions for when it's appropriate, though yes, I do believe it can be.

What I'm saying, instead, is that if the person in question does not, in fact, hold or express the views you're "cancelling" them for, then your attempt at "cancellation" is clearly unjustified.

With the current example, if Walker had not said:

"I want to be extremely clear that child sexual abuse is never ever okay."

but had instead said that "child sexual abuse is illegal" without actually saying whether or not that's a bad thing, would the cancellation have been justified?

I'm trying to get at some of those "sufficient conditions for when it's appropriate"; specifically related to what the prof appears to believe (or not believe, as the case may be).

I'm  not clear what type of scenario you are setting up with this hypothetical.

Is your question "Would the cancellation have been justified if Walker had NOT explicitly condemned child sexual abuse?"

Is the hypothetical that Walker is asked whether he is condoning child sexual abuse and their response is simply "child sexual abuse is illegal?"

Or perhaps says something like, "My personal opinions aren't relevant to the question of whether my scholarship is sound?" (which seems to me less dodgy than merely evading the question if the intention is to argue for keeping their personal value judgments out of the debate)

Yeah, I'm not sure just what you mean either, marshwiggle.

But for my part, I don't think that anything in the vicinity of these suggestions would be grounds for firing or even significant administrative pressure for Walker to leave. They'd be grounds for having a closer look at what they're doing, and they'd be perfectly acceptable grounds for protest. If closer scrutiny revealed a pattern of troubling incidents--or even just statements--then the employer might, at some point, want to think twice about their employment. If the closer scrutiny revealed that Walker had, for example, faked or tampered with their research, or was basing it on blatant and widely recognized falsehoods, etc., those would indeed be grounds for dismissal, in my view. Whether the best mechanism for that was admin pressure, direct action, or tenure review, I don't know.

Walker's downfall is at least partly semantic.  Their phrasing of "Minor-Attracted People" sounds tremendously alarming even as several posters, myself included, have pointed out that they are explicitly condemning child abuse.  Then Walker threw in "Dignity," which is simply a concept most people will not accept regarding pedophilia. 

As someone attuned to semantics (note the choice of pronouns), Walker should have been smarter about the presentation of their idea.  I totally understand that Walker wanted to destigmatize good people who control their deviant sexual drives, so maybe something along the lines of 'helping pedophiles control themselves' might have been more palatable.  Imagine something like "Rape-Attracted Men and their Quest for Dignity"; there are a number of men who are stimulated by the concept of rape even if they never act upon it.  Do we want rape fantasies associated with "dignity?"

We live in hyperbolic times.  Walker might have considered that.

Yeah... I wouldn't say that 'minor-attracted people' sounds dangerous so much as it sounds... unserious? Satirical? Regardless, that's not what you want from a term you're genuinely trying to introduce into discourse. I would think that the important and salient distinction is between passive sexual desire for children, and the active desire to abuse children. So, I dunno: save 'pedophile' to designate a state of desire not connected to either a concrete action or a state of desire for action, and call the desire to abuse (or actual abuse)... I dunno, maybe biephilia? Doesn't have the same ring to it, I know.

But, you know. Lots of people have sexual fantasies which, if actually enacted, would be very bad. Rape fantasies are an obvious example, but there are lots of other kinks and fantasies out there that are like this. Quite a lot of people have absolutely no desire to make their fantasies a reality; and among those who do, the vast majority don't want them to be literally true--they want to enjoy the fantasy with a consenting (adult) partner.

[smallcleanrat]

Walker's downfall is at least partly semantic.  Their phrasing of "Minor-Attracted People" sounds tremendously alarming even as several posters, myself included, have pointed out that they are explicitly condemning child abuse.  Then Walker threw in "Dignity," which is simply a concept most people will not accept regarding pedophilia. 

As someone attuned to semantics (note the choice of pronouns), Walker should have been smarter about the presentation of their idea.  I totally understand that Walker wanted to destigmatize good people who control their deviant sexual drives, so maybe something along the lines of 'helping pedophiles control themselves' might have been more palatable.  Imagine something like "Rape-Attracted Men and their Quest for Dignity"; there are a number of men who are stimulated by the concept of rape even if they never act upon it.  Do we want rape fantasies associated with "dignity?"

We live in hyperbolic times.  Walker might have considered that.

Attempting to change common use language for the purposes of reducing stigma is tough. Sometimes it works, sometimes it helps; other times it goes over like a lead balloon, maybe due to clumsy execution, maybe due to public resistance.

Walker's suggestion of "minor-attracted people" seems pretty cringey to me personally, mostly because it sounds like the sort of term someone would come up with to ridicule attempts to reduce stigma through language. It sounds too close to something like "vertically-challenged."



I'm guessing from the context that the reason you found this "tremendously alarming" is less about the fact that it's not a term likely to gain much ground, but more about the broader concern that certain efforts towards de-stigmatization seem to be attempts to trivialize or normalize something harmful?

I think the part in bold is not a fair reading of Walker's point about dignity. I took the point to be about acknowledging the humanity of these individuals, and to make the case that these sorts of desires do not define the whole person. How often are people like this called "monsters" or "evil"? How often do people assume that it's only a matter of time until desires turn into criminal actions because these people "can't change their nature" or "can't control themselves" or "don't care who they hurt"?

Many people take for granted that if someone has "deviant" desires they also lack empathy, self-control, or morality. This is the major assumption (thoughts = inevitable action; there is no such thing as a pedophile who wouldn't abuse a child if they had the opportunity) that Walker seems to want to counter.

The "dignity" in question is human dignity, not an implication that the desires themselves are dignified. If your point is that people will think that Walker wants to ennoble the desire (vs. humanizing the person), regardless of whether this is Walker's real point or not...yes, obviously. But is that a reason to stop trying to engage discussion? Why isn't widespread misperception about a topic not a reason to increase attempts to get people discussing it?



It's one thing to argue that Walker should have used a different approach if they really wanted people to listen rather than run them out of town. But I'm not sure I understand the position I've seen here and elsewhere that 1) yes, people badly misrepresented Walker's claims and 2) Walker should not have lost their job over this; HOWEVER 3) they brought it on themselves by trying to promote an argument they knew would attract vitriol and possibly violent backlash.

Is the implication here that Walker was naive? Stupid? Intentionally stirring up controversy for 15 minutes of fame?

To the question "Why would anyone bring that up when they know what the public response will be?"... Isn't that the entire point of counteracting "cancel culture"? Not allowing any line of inquiry to be suppressed via threats of backlash? Supporting the pursuit of knowledge through free inquiry?

...
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.

Meant to ask this earlier...what is the implication of saying you're fine with something as long as you don't know about it? I mean, I get not wanting to hear details about something you find gross or creepy, but in the context of the thread, what is the point of this statement? Does it imply some amount of responsibility on the part of others to protect those sensibilities?

If people research a topic, they are going to write or talk about it. If people write or talk about it, there's a chance you'll encounter the topic and maybe find out about something that squicks you out.

Your comment got me envisioning a Clockwork Orange-style scenario of having your eyes pried open so you can't look away from someone's powerpoint presentation.

[Wahoo Redux]

Well, that's a lot to answer. 

First off, don't be a jerk.  I simply meant that the idea of a child sex doll is pretty unsettling.  I hope you do to, the pursuit of knowledge not withstanding.

Secondly, we live in an imperfect world.  It's kind of like the arguments that we should have fewer mimic-assault-style rifles on the street and free college education.  Sure. I would agree.  But those are not going to happen and those debates are always going to agitate certain segments of the population.  People are reactionary.  People on The Fora are reactionary in their own way.  Walker is obviously an insightful if not brilliant thinker; nevertheless, some subjects (Nazis, child abuse, the KKK, pedophilia) are always going to cause a reaction. Certain conservatives who axiomatically oppose any deviation from "cis gender" are going to jump all over this.  Walker might have considered that aspect of real life and couched their insight a little better.  I would not go so far as to say they "brought this upon themselves," but they were not smart either. 

Rightly or wrongly, people, parents in particular, are going to hear all sorts of alarm bells going off when they read that; they will never read the work itself or even consider the ideas because they will be offended and angry from the moment they run into Walker's work.  Yes, people will think Walker is trying to give pedophiles "dignity." In fact, they DO believe that.  Read the comments on Newsweek.  I have not even checked Breitbart or One American News or whatever; I am pretty sure what is there right now.

And, while the simplicity of this statement may face some resistance here, pedophilia is something that we should not encourage.  As I posted before, de-stigmatizing substance addiction has been a good for society----but the focus is still entirely on recovery, sobriety, and lifestyle change.  I know this personally.  And as I posted earlier, I am for whatever works and is empirically sound----so if it is proven that child sex dolls keeps real children safe, okay----but I remain dubious.  Go ahead and invoke [whatever], I remain so. 

The concept of "minor-attracted people" actually legitimizes the behavior.  Walker's point is that "it is not their fault," but their language, maybe even their philosophy, does legitimize it, rightly or wrongly.  I am beginning to think wrongly.

[smallcleanrat]

Well, that's a lot to answer. 

First off, don't be a jerk.  I simply meant that the idea of a child sex doll is pretty unsettling.  I hope you do to, the pursuit of knowledge not withstanding.

Secondly, we live in an imperfect world.  It's kind of like the arguments that we should have fewer mimic-assault-style rifles on the street and free college education.  Sure. I would agree.  But those are not going to happen and those debates are always going to agitate certain segments of the population.  People are reactionary.  People on The Fora are reactionary in their own way.  Walker is obviously an insightful if not brilliant thinker; nevertheless, some subjects (Nazis, child abuse, the KKK, pedophilia) are always going to cause a reaction. Certain conservatives who axiomatically oppose any deviation from "cis gender" are going to jump all over this.  Walker might have considered that aspect of real life and couched their insight a little better.  I would not go so far as to say they "brought this upon themselves," but they were not smart either. 

Rightly or wrongly, people, parents in particular, are going to hear all sorts of alarm bells going off when they read that; they will never read the work itself or even consider the ideas because they will be offended and angry from the moment they run into Walker's work.  Yes, people will think Walker is trying to give pedophiles "dignity." In fact, they DO believe that.  Read the comments on Newsweek.  I have not even checked Breitbart or One American News or whatever; I am pretty sure what is there right now.

And, while the simplicity of this statement may face some resistance here, pedophilia is something that we should not encourage.  As I posted before, de-stigmatizing substance addiction has been a good for society----but the focus is still entirely on recovery, sobriety, and lifestyle change.  I know this personally.  And as I posted earlier, I am for whatever works and is empirically sound----so if it is proven that child sex dolls keeps real children safe, okay----but I remain dubious.  Go ahead and invoke [whatever], I remain so. 

The concept of "minor-attracted people" actually legitimizes the behavior.  Walker's point is that "it is not their fault," but their language, maybe even their philosophy, does legitimize it, rightly or wrongly.  I am beginning to think wrongly.

Sorry, wasn't trying to be a jerk. Based on your wording, I thought you were making a statement beyond "child sex dolls are creepy" but I wasn't clear on what it was.

The following two lines of questioning are not to say you are wrong; they are not rhetorical snark. They are honestly just questions because a few points are not clear to me.

1) How could Walker have presented their work or made their point in such a way as to provoke less reactionary responses?  Something like emphasizing prevention or rehabilitation instead of de-stigmatization? How could someone whose goal is reducing stigma approach this in a better way?

2) What does it mean to "legitimize" something? What is the specific "concept" to which you are referring when you say the concept legitimizes the behavior?