Cancel culture test case?

[Wahoo Redux]

1)  Yeah, I think they...ah heck, I am getting tired of this pronoun business.  I like "hu."  Yes, I think hu might have couched hu's title and terminology much better.  I think I suggested as much.  I am not sure how hu might have worded it exactly, but the current title is provocative.  I think I have explained why I believe this.

2)  "Legitimize" in the vernacular and dictionary sense, "to make legitimate."  The "minor-attracted people" sounds, at least to my ears, as if it wants to mitigate the revulsion we should feel.  I suspect that this is what Walker wants.  Hu wants to help people who did not ask to be pariahs.  Yet the more I thought about it, the more I began to think that we should not accept this particular pathology.  It is in a much different realm than those human realities we once listed in the DSM as abnormalities or diseases (homosexuality in particular). 

[smallcleanrat]

1)  Yeah, I think they...ah heck, I am getting tired of this pronoun business.  I like "hu."  Yes, I think hu might have couched hu's title and terminology much better.  I think I suggested as much.  I am not sure how hu might have worded it exactly, but the current title is provocative.  I think I have explained why I believe this.

2)  "Legitimize" in the vernacular and dictionary sense, "to make legitimate."  The "minor-attracted people" sounds, at least to my ears, as if it wants to mitigate the revulsion we should feel.  I suspect that this is what Walker wants.  Hu wants to help people who did not ask to be pariahs.  Yet the more I thought about it, the more I began to think that we should not accept this particular pathology.  It is in a much different realm than those human realities we once listed in the DSM as abnormalities or diseases (homosexuality in particular).

Sorry, I'm still not clear on what "legitimate" means in this context. Definitions I'm finding: being exactly as intended or presented; accordant with law; conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards.

Is it the 'conforming to accepted rules and standards' sense you're talking about? As in, there is an accepted standard that child sexual abuse is abhorrent, and Walker is attempting to weaken that standard? When you say "revulsion we should feel" do you mean revulsion towards the thoughts or towards the person?

I think part of Walker's motive was to make a distinction between people who act on their thoughts and people who do not; maybe trying to get away from the pedophile = criminal (or criminal-to-be) association. Is making this distinction in itself a form of legitimizing child abuse, regardless of terminology?

Considering the following groups of people:
1) Those who have the thoughts, but never act on them because they find child abuse just as abhorrent as anybody else
2) Those who have the thoughts, but never act on them purely from a self-preservation standpoint (not wanting to risk consequences like jailtime)
3) Those who have the thoughts, act on them, but feel remorse and seek some form of rehabilitation
4) Those who have the thoughts, act on them, feel no remorse and see nothing immoral about their behavior

Would an argument that some of these people deserve more revulsion than others be a form of legitimizing child abuse?



Do you think it would have been more effective for Walker to frame the issue as a form of psychological disorder? As in, not their fault, but also not something to consider normal or healthy?

[Wahoo Redux]

This, my friend, is starting to bore me.  We are descending into pedantry and lots of split hairs that no conditioner will fix.  I'm not sure what you are after.

I cannot make myself much clearer.  It is all there.

[smallcleanrat]

This, my friend, is starting to bore me.  We are descending into pedantry and lots of split hairs that no conditioner will fix.  I'm not sure what you are after.

I cannot make myself much clearer.  It is all there.

I was trying to follow your train of thought, but it really wasn't clear to me without the thoughts/actions/person distinction, especially the thing about legitimacy. Sometimes I thought you were saying Walker's approach was the issue, but not the broader motive to humanize or reduce stigma. Other times, I thought you were saying the motivation itself is the issue (which seemed to imply there was no possible way Walker could present their case without proposing to "legitimize" child abuse).

Sorry; I honestly wasn't trying to be difficult. I was trying to understand your position.

[mahagonny]

It comes down to mutual consent doesn't it? There is no consent to be given by any pre-pubescent minor, so it's a rape fantasy.
If he can restrain himself from acting on pedophilic urges, and claim credit for doing so, he should also be able to restrain himself from inflicting his urges on our ears. He chooses not to. He's getting gratification from talking about something he knows he shouldn't. That's just perversion-lite.

[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).

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.

OK, thanks for the clarification. I'm interested what people, (on either the left or right, actually), who say they support academic freedom, use to make distinctions when they identify things that they believe should be censured.

In this case, there are people who are allies of trans people (such as Walker) and who believe sexual orientation is not grounds for any discrimination, who nevertheless think Walker should be censured, and I'm trying to figure out the general principle that applies. ( I feel like in many of these cases, the people saying this person should be cancelled want to treat it like some special case that doesn't really violate any more fundamental principles, without being willing to spell out the principles that make this different.)

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

I agree.  And I think the university supported hu----Walker decided to step down on hu's own after public intimidation.  Am I correct in this?

I have started to wonder if Walker's approach truly is legitimate (which for some reason is confusing) but Walker should have academic freedom within a university to pursue it.

[smallcleanrat]

In this case, there are people who are allies of trans people (such as Walker) and who believe sexual orientation is not grounds for any discrimination, who nevertheless think Walker should be censured, and I'm trying to figure out the general principle that applies. ( I feel like in many of these cases, the people saying this person should be cancelled want to treat it like some special case that doesn't really violate any more fundamental principles, without being willing to spell out the principles that make this different.)

That was the impression I was getting from a lot of people too, and I had the same confusion. There seemed to be a lot of talk that expressed disapproval of the way Walker's work was mischaracterized and of the public intimidation. Yet at the same time there was a lot of commentary that seemed to imply: "But some things really shouldn't be up for discussion and this is one of them."

Wahoo Redux, I'm honestly sorry that my posts were so irritating to you. I'm an idiot sometimes and I don't always know when to let things go. I really wasn't clear on the meaning of some of your statements which is why I asked so many questions about them. I wasn't playing dumb to be annoying, sometimes I'm just genuinely dense.

Maybe the mods can please go back and delete some of my recent posts on this thread? Some of it may come across as overly snarky or uncivil, and I don't seem to have contributed anything of value to the discussion.

[Wahoo Redux]

Honestly, SCR, you are fine as far as I'm concerned.  We are cool.  Sometimes there is just an end to the commentary. 

I think you are correct that there is some contradiction in the way we, including myself, view Walker's work.  Hu is on dangerous territory.  Hu's subject is a very dangerous subject.  This is a subject that I know almost nothing about in the scholarly sense and Walker is suggesting an approach that I did not even know was an approach.  I've simply started to wonder if Walker's research is legitimate in the sense that it will result in a desirable outcome.  So while I support hu's right to research, I also remain unconvinced that it is worthwhile.  It will be up to much smarter people than I am to figure this out.

You are not dense, SCR.  It is obvious you are highly intelligent.

[marshwiggle]

Honestly, SCR, you are fine as far as I'm concerned.  We are cool.  Sometimes there is just an end to the commentary. 

I think you are correct that there is some contradiction in the way we, including myself, view Walker's work.  Hu is on dangerous territory.  Hu's subject is a very dangerous subject.  This is a subject that I know almost nothing about in the scholarly sense and Walker is suggesting an approach that I did not even know was an approach.  I've simply started to wonder if Walker's research is legitimate in the sense that it will result in a desirable outcome.  So while I support hu's right to research, I also remain unconvinced that it is worthwhile.  It will be up to much smarter people than I am to figure this out.

This is basically the definition of why, in all kinds of fields, academic freedom is important. Through history, all kinds of things that seem quite "safe" now were "dangerous" to someone.

[smallcleanrat]

Honestly, SCR, you are fine as far as I'm concerned.  We are cool.  Sometimes there is just an end to the commentary. 

I think you are correct that there is some contradiction in the way we, including myself, view Walker's work.  Hu is on dangerous territory.  Hu's subject is a very dangerous subject.  This is a subject that I know almost nothing about in the scholarly sense and Walker is suggesting an approach that I did not even know was an approach.  I've simply started to wonder if Walker's research is legitimate in the sense that it will result in a desirable outcome.  So while I support hu's right to research, I also remain unconvinced that it is worthwhile.  It will be up to much smarter people than I am to figure this out.

You are not dense, SCR.  It is obvious you are highly intelligent.

Ok, cool. Thanks so much for responding. And I think I do understand your point of view better now.