NY Times article on cancel culture incl many GCs!

[FWRLurker]

I almost can’t believe it but the NYT, wokest of the woke, has published an article sympathetic to virulent trans phobes such as Meghan Murphy, Kathleen Stock, and Katie Herzog, and more generally about the phenomenon of woke progressive cancel culture.

www.nytimes.com/2019/11/02/style/what-is-cancel-culture.html#click=t.co/2jUXObqZEn

I don’t think I’ve ever read an article in a publication about any of these people that didn’t include a counter point from those “harmed” by their writings.

I don’t know how to click link sorry

<a class="break-all" href="//www.nytimes.com/2019/11/02/style/what-is-cancel-culture.html#click=t.co/2jUXObqZEn" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.nytimes.com/2019/11/02/style/what-is-cancel-culture.html#click=t.co/2jUXObqZEn

Hmm I canceled my subscription a couple of weeks ago, citing the promotion of gender identity ideology with no response from those concerned about its effects on women’s, children’s, and LGB rights. Also filled out a survey to the same effect a few days ago.

I take full credit for the change in tone.

More seriously, though, I wonder whether they are hearing from many readers who feel the same way.

I wonder how many people have had to cancel their subscriptions before the NYT even considered this issue might he worth covering. Nice Irony.

Interesting article.

Cool

Don’t really see it as a tide-turning article. There’s some passive aggressive bits. For example:

adjacent to the provocative or clueless or callous (Dave Chappelle, Scarlett Johansson).

What was Scarlett Johansson’s “crime” again that was so “clueless or callous”? Oh yes, taking a role in a film of a person who has been retrospectively transed. Heaven forbid an actor should want to role play!

Ms. Herzog became a member of a unique emerging class of people — journalists, academics, opinion writers — canceled for bad, conservative or offensive opinions

So not a “different” opinion, or an “opposing” opinion but a pejorative opinion (I have no doubt “conservative” is being used pejoratively here).

And this subheading:

Here Is the Attention We All Ordered

I also found it faintly ridiculous that there had to be qualification of the difference between Harvey Weinstein and women who are expressing opinions, because sure, if you didn’t point that out it would all be the same really, wouldn’t it?

Isn't that the problem though? We all want to read articles that we agree with perfectly. That's not realistic, what is realistic is the possibility of newspapers and other media facilitating the discussion.

I want to read articles from journalists that have neutrality. That way no one can accuse the media of facilitating the cancel culture. The author of this article has decided that what Herzog wrote was either “bad, conservative, or offensive”. The author could have written “taken to be bad, conservative or offensive” but didn’t. Therefore the author has taken a stance on Herzog’s piece. They haven’t facilitated a discussion around the piece itself, only whether the author of a “bad, conservative or offensive” piece deserved to be vilified as much as they were. Addressing the fact that many people didn’t see the article by Herzog as such would have been very useful. But they didn’t. As such, I don’t see this article as expressing a change in sentiment from the NYT.

I don’t need to agree with an article perfectly, but I can make my own inferences and conclude differently to other people.

I don't believe there really is such a thing as neutrality. There are more obvious biases and less obvious ones. Every word used in description and every choice about which facts to include is made based on the beliefs of the writer.

That’s true in all articles like this one. Maybe the only true neutrality is in “there was a car crash on the M6 today” articles.

But the difference is I highlight my differences in opinion to the journalist who wrote it, and I what I don’t do is email the NYT calling for them to be fired

No newspaper is going to be entirely neutral but I have little time for those spreading disinformation and plain old lies.

If a paper wishes to support self ID that is one thing, but when they spread lies about suicide rates (thoroughly debunked and if anything increase with transition), the statistical chances of trans people being murdered (no higher than any other group in US or UK), the safety of puberty blockers (they aren't safe) and hurl abuse at people pointing to these factual errors then they have gone beyond support for self ID and into the realms of causing serious, real world harm. Presumably for profit. I won't be part of that.

Well put, Arnold.

and I what I don’t do is email the NYT calling for them to be fired

Precisely - instead you put forward your opinions for others to reflect on. Much more constructive.

I thought this was a good quote:

The biggest problem we have as a culture is that we can’t define who the establishment is,” Mr. Tavana said. “Is the establishment the woke media people who own 99 percent of the keyboards in the country, or is it the old, canceled guys in media? Who’s the punk rock band and who’s the corporate rock band?

Once “woke” becomes mainstream it’s no longer going to be possible to keep up the illusion that it represents the little guy fighting against the elites.

The woke are the elites now. We shouldn’t toss out all leftwing ideas - Sometimes they ARE fighting for the little guy. But they surely are not the little guy themselves anymore.

Something that struck me a while ago, when I was seeing a lot of liberals post articles claiming to show that studies have said that conservative people are more likely to be stupid or ill-informed, was that many of these liberals were essentially liberal based on conservative tendencies.

That is to say, liberalism or progressivism, or a sort of centre left ideology , was the dominant view for people of their peer group. They were liberal because they had a particular sort of education and background and they more or less went along with it.

spectator.us/trans-rights-voter-wrongs/

not sure if this was already mentioned in this thread but the message does seem to be getting through, and MM is a great spokesperson!

Trans rights, voter wrongs
Insisting that men can be women is a sure way to lose an election