Another Seuss Cancellation Thread (Summer 2023)

[downer]

I found a letter from FIRE condemning the cancelling.
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/open-letter-american-anthropological-association-and-canadian-anthropology-society

I might support some cancellings, I guess, such as a Nazi march through Skokie, IL. I definitely don't support the cancelling of Kathleen Lowrey. I don't see anything remotely fascist in her work.

[Wahoo Redux]

Part of this is how wingnuts will cherry-pick and misuse the research.

I'm not saying that this cancellation is right; I am saying that it might be a necessary evil.  And I admit that I am ambivalent. Not the least because I know so little about anthropology that I have to rely on the association's best judgment.

She also rejected that idea that the discipline was removing the discussion of sex, noting that there were more than 30 events at the annual program, set for November in Toronto, that would discuss the subject.

The panel was nixed, she said, only after complaints that it did not have scientific merit and that it was harmful to some of the association's 8,000 members.

"This was an intention to marginalize, not engage scientifically," Dr. Pérez said.

I hate to do this because someone ALWAYS does this, but what if we have a panel of noted anthropologists who submit a panel entitled "The Jew is Always the Problem."  The wingnuts have moved on to "gender" and trans-people because they have lost out on gay rights and women's rights.  And while they have successfully legislated restrictions on abortions, they have done so in the face of popular resistence and they are paying for it at the voting booth.  They need a new target, one that will frighten impressionable, bigoted parents. 

I've largely curated this thread because I find it alarming how censorious academia is.  But then with the Trump indictment I began to see the rhetoric from the right as a true evil, not a negotiation of ideas.  We may be facing choices like the one simply as a stopgap.

The blowback is that now the wingnuts will use this as evidence of "liberal intolerance" and "liberal indoctrination"----but it really does not matter; their minds are limited one-way streets anyway.  There is no reason for us to legitimize their hate.

[marshwiggle]

The blowback is that now the wingnuts will use this as evidence of "liberal intolerance" and "liberal indoctrination"----but it really does not matter; their minds are limited one-way streets anyway.  There is no reason for us to legitimize their hate.

2 questions:

• Are there wingnuts on the left?
• What makes a person holding a particular view a wingnut? More specifically, when someone espouses a view that has been accepted for ages, what is required for expressing that view as proof of being a wingnut?

[ciao_yall]

The blowback is that now the wingnuts will use this as evidence of "liberal intolerance" and "liberal indoctrination"----but it really does not matter; their minds are limited one-way streets anyway.  There is no reason for us to legitimize their hate.

2 questions:

• Are there wingnuts on the left?
• What makes a person holding a particular view a wingnut? More specifically, when someone espouses a view that has been accepted for ages, what is required for expressing that view as proof of being a wingnut?

There are wingnuts all around us.

In my mind, disagreement is normal and I can respect people even if I disagree with them.

Anyone who goes so far as to demonize someone who disagrees with them, and even gin up a "parade of horribles" if giving in to a slight compromise, is in my mind, a wingnut.

• "Sometimes boys like to wear pink and pretend they are girls at school, and girls like to do the same thing."
• IF YOU DON'T TELL THE PARENTS YOU ARE HIDING THE FACT THAT THE SCHOOL NURSE IS PRESCRIBING HORMONE BLOCKERS!

• "We need to have a reasonable policy for accepting immigrants and asylum applicants. They can be registered, and given work permits."
• BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE MS-13 FENTANYL-TOTING TERRORISTS WHO ARE ALSO WELFARE CHEATS? YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE RESOURCES FROM OUR HOMELESS VETERANS TO HELP THESE CRIMINALS?

[ciao_yall]

From the article...

She cited cases where an anthropologist might be interested in the biological effects of being female — for instance, looking at sex preferences in infanticide of past populations.

Um... nobody in the anthropological field disagrees with this fact. So why are you putting up a presentation on this topic?

A large percentage of people are binary-cisgendered and that works for most of the research out there. For the few that are not, well, research can consider how to address this fact.

And, many cultures see sex/gender as nonbinary. So is she saying that from an anthropological point of view, these cultures are invalid?

[Wahoo Redux]

• Are there wingnuts on the left?

Yes, honey, there are wingnuts on the left.  Right now, however, the wingnuts have control of the Republican party.

• What makes a person holding a particular view a wingnut? More specifically, when someone espouses a view that has been accepted for ages, what is required for expressing that view as proof of being a wingnut?

Zealotry and fanaticism.  It's simple, really.

[marshwiggle]

• Are there wingnuts on the left?

Yes, honey, there are wingnuts on the left.  Right now, however, the wingnuts have control of the Republican party.

• What makes a person holding a particular view a wingnut? More specifically, when someone espouses a view that has been accepted for ages, what is required for expressing that view as proof of being a wingnut?

Zealotry and fanaticism.  It's simple, really.

So, saying something calmly and quietly makes one not a wingnut, but saying it loudly with conviction does make one a wingnut?

[Wahoo Redux]

• Are there wingnuts on the left?

Yes, honey, there are wingnuts on the left.  Right now, however, the wingnuts have control of the Republican party.

• What makes a person holding a particular view a wingnut? More specifically, when someone espouses a view that has been accepted for ages, what is required for expressing that view as proof of being a wingnut?

Zealotry and fanaticism.  It's simple, really.

So, saying something calmly and quietly makes one not a wingnut, but saying it loudly with conviction does make one a wingnut?

You will just have to figure it out for yourself, Marshy.

Do you ever get tired of these dumb games?

[Wahoo Redux]

NYT: A Professor's Remarks on Sexual Consent Stir Controversy. Now He's Banned From Campus.

This guy deserves a Foot-In-Mouth Gold Medal, but still an example of our censorious, paranoid, melodramatic academic zeitgeist. 

[marshwiggle]

• Are there wingnuts on the left?

Yes, honey, there are wingnuts on the left.  Right now, however, the wingnuts have control of the Republican party.

• What makes a person holding a particular view a wingnut? More specifically, when someone espouses a view that has been accepted for ages, what is required for expressing that view as proof of being a wingnut?

Zealotry and fanaticism.  It's simple, really.

So, saying something calmly and quietly makes one not a wingnut, but saying it loudly with conviction does make one a wingnut?

You will just have to figure it out for yourself, Marshy.

Do you ever get tired of these dumb games?

How is it a "dumb game" to ask what the difference is between a "wingnut" who shouldn't be given a platform and someone who should be allowed to be heard?

[Wahoo Redux]

Oh okay, I'll help, buddy.

a nut with a pair of projections for the fingers to screw it on.

2.
DEROGATORY•INFORMAL

a person with extreme, typically right-wing, views.
"McCarthyite wingnuts"

3. an Asian tree of the walnut family, with a deeply fissured trunk, compound leaves, and characteristic broad-winged nutlets.

I like the Urban Dictionary definition:

Wing Nut
1. Ideological extremist from either side of the political spectrum who unquestioningly repeats any and all propaganda and/or conspiracy theories propagated by their side of the political spectrum, no matter how unlikely.

2. An eccentric driven by religious fervor to take on unusual or irrational social or political opinions without care that other members of society consider them off balance. The extremism of these people's faith is proof to them that they are right.

[marshwiggle]

Oh okay, I'll help, buddy.

a nut with a pair of projections for the fingers to screw it on.

2.
DEROGATORY•INFORMAL

a person with extreme, typically right-wing, views.
"McCarthyite wingnuts"

3. an Asian tree of the walnut family, with a deeply fissured trunk, compound leaves, and characteristic broad-winged nutlets.

I like the Urban Dictionary definition:

Wing Nut
1. Ideological extremist from either side of the political spectrum who unquestioningly repeats any and all propaganda and/or conspiracy theories propagated by their side of the political spectrum, no matter how unlikely.

2. An eccentric driven by religious fervor to take on unusual or irrational social or political opinions without care that other members of society consider them off balance. The extremism of these people's faith is proof to them that they are right.

So up until 20 (10?) years ago it would have been non-controversial to say that biological sex is binary. Now, it has apparently become, not merely worthy of debate, or even controversial, but absolutely abhorrent to express.  What makes someone saying that now a wingnut, whereas the same person saying it 20 years ago totally unremarkable? Has there been some sort of monumental breakthrough in biology? Or is the reframing entirely cultural and ideological?

[Wahoo Redux]

So up until 20 (10?) years ago it would have been non-controversial to say that biological sex is binary. Now, it has apparently become, not merely worthy of debate, or even controversial, but absolutely abhorrent to express.  What makes someone saying that now a wingnut, whereas the same person saying it 20 years ago totally unremarkable? Has there been some sort of monumental breakthrough in biology? Or is the reframing entirely cultural and ideological?

See below (accidental double-post)

[Wahoo Redux]

So up until 20 (10?) years ago it would have been non-controversial to say that biological sex is binary. Now, it has apparently become, not merely worthy of debate, or even controversial, but absolutely abhorrent to express.  What makes someone saying that now a wingnut, whereas the same person saying it 20 years ago totally unremarkable? Has there been some sort of monumental breakthrough in biology? Or is the reframing entirely cultural and ideological?

You can blame the Republican wingnuts for the controversy.  20 years ago I never heard to terms "binary" or "nonbinary."  We've had transvestites forever, at least as long as David Bowie and Twisted Sister.  It's only recently that gullible people started falling for the Republican-led propaganda.

There is no, none, zero evidence that nonbinary people as a group hurt anyone.

There is a ton of objective evidence that Catholic Priests as a group do.

There is your answer.

Now, Marshy, use your brain----you have two very easy to understand definitions upstairs.  Go back and reread them.

[marshwiggle]

So up until 20 (10?) years ago it would have been non-controversial to say that biological sex is binary. Now, it has apparently become, not merely worthy of debate, or even controversial, but absolutely abhorrent to express.  What makes someone saying that now a wingnut, whereas the same person saying it 20 years ago totally unremarkable? Has there been some sort of monumental breakthrough in biology? Or is the reframing entirely cultural and ideological?

You can blame the Republican wingnuts for the controversy.  20 years ago I never heard to terms "binary" or "nonbinary."  We've had transvestites forever, at least as long as David Bowie and Twisted Sister.  It's only recently that gullible people started falling for the Republican-led propaganda.

There is no, none, zero evidence that nonbinary people as a group hurt anyone.

What does that have to do with being able to describe biological reality?

Just because there are airplanes and wingsuits doesn't mean it makes any sense to say that humans are avian. To say that humans can fly, but not like birds do, doesn't "harm" humans who want to be able to fly. And if a toddler thinks they can fly like Superman, no parent is going to let them jump off the roof to "support" their superhero identity. But a parent may pay for the kid's flying lessons a few years later. Ambiguating language so that there's no distinction between being able to fly like Superman and being able to fly in an airplane would be stupid and dangerous.

It doesn't help anyone to pretend that reality can be whatever they wish it to be.