Another Seuss Cancellation Thread (Summer 2023)

[Wahoo Redux]

Maybe eventually both sides will agree to quit the madness.

Maybe you should lead the way, Marshbug.  Think you can quit the madness?

Do you have any examples of me suggesting speech should be filtered because it might offend someone?

How would you feel about a drag queen giving a book reading in a public library?

[marshwiggle]

Maybe eventually both sides will agree to quit the madness.

Maybe you should lead the way, Marshbug.  Think you can quit the madness?

Do you have any examples of me suggesting speech should be filtered because it might offend someone?

How would you feel about a drag queen giving a book reading in a public library?

About the same as a display in the middle of the library explaining why the "special operation" by Russia in Ukraine is necessary.

Either of those, if they were in a separate space in the library, that people can choose to enter or not, wouldn't be a big deal. The issue isn't the speech itself, it's whether people in a public space, have to be exposed to it. If the children's section of the library has someone reading a book out loud, then anyone looking for books with their kids is exposed to it, whether they want to be or not. In a public space, like a library, there should be a minimum of political or ideological messaging that has the implied endorsement of the government. (Political candidates shouldn't be campaigning in those spaces either, for that reason.)

Public institutions should be relatively anodyne in their image, so that they don't take sides on any conflict of the moment. (In a library, especially, the one message should be that this is a place where people can have their thoughts which may not be popular. People treating each other with respect despite these differences is what matters in a diverse society.)

 ETA: How about "private militia story time"? In a state with open-carry laws, how would you feel about someone in a library reading children's books while being visibly armed? If the weapons were unloaded, would that make it obviously OK?

[Wahoo Redux]

Either of those, if they were in a separate space in the library, that people can choose to enter or not, wouldn't be a big deal. The issue isn't the speech itself, it's whether people in a public space, have to be exposed to it. If the children's section of the library has someone reading a book out loud, then anyone looking for books with their kids is exposed to it, whether they want to be or not. In a public space, like a library, there should be a minimum of political or ideological messaging that has the implied endorsement of the government. (Political candidates shouldn't be campaigning in those spaces either, for that reason.)

Public institutions should be relatively anodyne in their image, so that they don't take sides on any conflict of the moment. (In a library, especially, the one message should be that this is a place where people can have their thoughts which may not be popular. People treating each other with respect despite these differences is what matters in a diverse society.)

 ETA: How about "private militia story time"? In a state with open-carry laws, how would you feel about someone in a library reading children's books while being visibly armed? If the weapons were unloaded, would that make it obviously OK?

Riiiiiiiight, let's just keep all those bad people with their wrongthink hidden from view because someone might get offended if they are accidentally exposed to something they disagree with.  Keep'em in the shadows----Christ would agree.

That's not bigoted or censorious. 

Nor is it hypocritical in the light of recent comments.

Like this little cherry:

People treating each other with respect despite these differences is what matters in a diverse society

Which is exactly to the point what you are not doing.

You seem to want "Respect" only when it applies to you.

I know that Christians hate it when non-Christians quote the Bible back to them, it's understandable, but the beam in your eye, buddy, whenever you talk about "progressives" being "offended" is bulging from your tear ducts. 

I don't have a problem with people being visibly armed if the building code allows it. Cops carry guns wherever they go. Cops love little kids.  But again, Marshy, think of your analogy.  A gun is a lethal weapon.  Gun violence is an epidemic in our culture.  Not the same as a book reading.  Not the same thing at all.

Critical thinking: humanities 101.

[Wahoo Redux]

IHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University

[ciao_yall]

IHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University

We are getting to the point where we are "cancelling" people for who they are, because they fell on the wrong side of history with another group.

This is getting a bit cuckoo.

[marshwiggle]

IHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University

We are getting to the point where we are "cancelling" people for who they are, because they fell on the wrong side of history with another group.

This is getting a bit cuckoo.

These days there are an incredible number of statements that can put someone "on the wrong side of history with another group", such as "Only women can have babies."

[Wahoo Redux]

IHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University

We are getting to the point where we are "cancelling" people for who they are, because they fell on the wrong side of history with another group.

This is getting a bit cuckoo.

These days there are an incredible number of statements that can put someone "on the wrong side of history with another group", such as "Only women can have babies."

Who actually took offense at "Only women can have babies?"  Who said that in the first place?

[marshwiggle]

IHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University

We are getting to the point where we are "cancelling" people for who they are, because they fell on the wrong side of history with another group.

This is getting a bit cuckoo.

These days there are an incredible number of statements that can put someone "on the wrong side of history with another group", such as "Only women can have babies."

Who actually took offense at "Only women can have babies?"  Who said that in the first place?

Birth coach is 'hounded out' of industry charity Doula UK after transgender activists branded her Facebook message claiming only women can have babies 'offensive'

ynsey McCarthy-Calvert, 45, was forced to stand down as spokesperson for Doula UK and has since resigned altogether from the national organisation for birth coaches. Her exit comes after transgender rights activists triggered an investigation in which Doula UK concluded her message breached its equality and diversity guidelines.

They did not expel the mother- of-four, who has been a doula – who provide continuous support during pregnancy – for six years, but threatened to suspend her unless she deleted the post.

I didn't even have a specific example, but it was on the first page of Google results. I didn't even bother to see how many more there were......

[Wahoo Redux]

IHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University

We are getting to the point where we are "cancelling" people for who they are, because they fell on the wrong side of history with another group.

This is getting a bit cuckoo.

These days there are an incredible number of statements that can put someone "on the wrong side of history with another group", such as "Only women can have babies."

Who actually took offense at "Only women can have babies?"  Who said that in the first place?

Birth coach is 'hounded out' of industry charity Doula UK after transgender activists branded her Facebook message claiming only women can have babies 'offensive'

ynsey McCarthy-Calvert, 45, was forced to stand down as spokesperson for Doula UK and has since resigned altogether from the national organisation for birth coaches. Her exit comes after transgender rights activists triggered an investigation in which Doula UK concluded her message breached its equality and diversity guidelines.

They did not expel the mother- of-four, who has been a doula – who provide continuous support during pregnancy – for six years, but threatened to suspend her unless she deleted the post.

I didn't even have a specific example, but it was on the first page of Google results. I didn't even bother to see how many more there were......

Her exit comes after transgender rights activists triggered an investigation in which Doula UK concluded her message breached its equality and diversity guidelines.

I guess her speech hurt the organization, huh? 

Guess that makes her resignation legitimate. 

And this is what she said:

The Doula UK row started after Cancer Research UK dropped the word 'women' from its smear test campaign, instead saying screening was 'relevant for everyone aged 25-64 with a cervix'.

In response, Mrs McCarthy-Calvert posted a photograph on Facebook of a negligee-clad woman somersaulting underwater, with the wording: 'I am not a "cervix owner" I am not a "menstruator" I am not a "feeling". I am not defined by wearing a dress and lipstick. I am a woman: an adult human female.'

Beneath it she wrote: 'Women birth all the people, make up half the population, but less than a third of the seats in the House of Commons are occupied by us.'

She claimed women were accused of transphobia more than men, arguing men were not 'subjected to cries of bigotry and transphobia when they say they don't want to have sex with a woman with a penis'. Most trans-women have not had their male genitalia removed.

A Facebook follower accused her of using 'absolutely disgusting language', adding: 'Also, you seem to be forgetting that not only women birth children.'

I hope you are not going to suggest this is bigger than this stupid post by this lady and then the counter-reaction from 5 years ago.

And you might even take this as an object lesson: there were no problems until McCarthy-Calvert decided to be offended by some pretty unimportant language on a smear test (why would she care!?) and then other people decided to make a problem out of her problem.

Most of our problems only exist when we decide to make them problems.  Perfect example.

[Wahoo Redux]

The Mighty Marshmarine provided this one on another thread.

Business Insider: 'Disinvitations' for college speakers are on the rise — here's a list of people turned away this year

[Langue_doc]

IHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University

We are getting to the point where we are "cancelling" people for who they are, because they fell on the wrong side of history with another group.

This is getting a bit cuckoo.

These days there are an incredible number of statements that can put someone "on the wrong side of history with another group", such as "Only women can have babies."

Who actually took offense at "Only women can have babies?"  Who said that in the first place?

I recall seeing this in the BBC news website a few years ago. I think it was the British health system that decreeed that the bolded statement above was not inclusive and also introduced the term "chest feeding" because, as we all know, "breastfeeding" is discriminatory. Some of my friends and I had a good laugh.

Here's a related link.

[Wahoo Redux]

IHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University

We are getting to the point where we are "cancelling" people for who they are, because they fell on the wrong side of history with another group.

This is getting a bit cuckoo.

These days there are an incredible number of statements that can put someone "on the wrong side of history with another group", such as "Only women can have babies."

Who actually took offense at "Only women can have babies?"  Who said that in the first place?

I recall seeing this in the BBC news website a few years ago. I think it was the British health system that decreeed that the bolded statement above was not inclusive and also introduced the term "chest feeding" because, as we all know, "breastfeeding" is discriminatory. Some of my friends and I had a good laugh.

Here's a related link.

For the record, this particular tack in thought and language is stooooooopid and deserves sarcasm and satire, but not rage----it is not important enough for rage.

[ciao_yall]

IHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University

We are getting to the point where we are "cancelling" people for who they are, because they fell on the wrong side of history with another group.

This is getting a bit cuckoo.

These days there are an incredible number of statements that can put someone "on the wrong side of history with another group", such as "Only women can have babies."

Who actually took offense at "Only women can have babies?"  Who said that in the first place?

I recall seeing this in the BBC news website a few years ago. I think it was the British health system that decreeed that the bolded statement above was not inclusive and also introduced the term "chest feeding" because, as we all know, "breastfeeding" is discriminatory. Some of my friends and I had a good laugh.

Here's a related link.

And... babies grow in abdominal ovens and come out of genital holes.

[Wahoo Redux]

IHE: As Alabama Republicans Target DEI, They Propose 'Gag Order' on Professors

But free speech groups have raised a particular concern. They say the measure could limit faculty members' speech to such an extent that even professors who disagree with the bill's list of "divisive concepts" couldn't teach students about these ideas—even to criticize them.

For instance, a professor's ability to teach about the historical dangers of nationalism, racism or antisemitism could be hamstrung by the fact that one of the "divisive concepts" listed is that "any race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior." A faculty member could be punished for having students read some of the founding fathers' racist ideas to understand and critique them, or for having them read about Nazi leaders' antisemitic, nationalistic ideas or Martin Luther's criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church.

[Wahoo Redux]

NYT: College Dorm Decorations Become a Front in the Campus Free Speech Wars

Lower Deck:

Barnard College is requiring students to strip decorations from their dorm doors in the wake of protests over the Israel-Hamas war.

"Zionism is terrorism," one student's door sticker said.

Concerned that some students might feel intimidated by such messages, the Barnard administration has decided to enforce a ban on dorm door decorations altogether. Their removal was set to begin on Thursday, and all but "official items placed by the college" will be taken down, Leslie Grinage, the dean of the college, wrote in an email to students.

"While many decorations and fixtures on doors serve as a means of helpful communication amongst peers, we are also aware that some may have the unintended effect of isolating those who have different views and beliefs," she wrote.

Colleges have big mouths about free speech and free inquiry. 

Colleges also prattle endlessly about being welcoming, being safe for everyone, and DEI.

It may be that you can't have both at the same time, particularly if we conceive of college students as being so incredibly fragile.

And some students are----Columbia is being sued by students claiming "anti-Zionism" is making it hard for them to get an education.