The Great SSP Canada Cancel Culture & Wokeism Thread

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by jamincan

Is a gynecologist refusing to give you a circumcision a form of discrimination, lio45?

I would always prefer to have an expert perform any medical procedure on me.

Any competent urologist or general surgeon can perform a circumcision in a couple of minutes - easy peasy. A gynaecologist however might not have performed such a surgery since their first (general) year of surgical training. They certainly would take longer than a general surgeon to do the procedure, it would likely be more painful, and there would undoubtedly be a higher complication rate. Even simple procedures can have significant complications. For a circumcision, the worst complications (aside from infection) would be scarring or phimosis. If untreated, this can lead to poor urinary stream, sexual dysfunction and ultimately penile cancer down the road.

So, why would you want a gynaecologist to do it????

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I would always prefer to have an expert perform any medical procedure on me.

Same for me, but that's not necessarily everyone's opinion.

So, why would you want a gynaecologist to do it????

Principle.

It's the exact same age-old question as "why would you want to have your scrotum hair ripped off by someone who's never done that and doesn't want to do it?", "why would you want to spend several hours seated on a plane right next to someone who's made sick by your presence?", and "why would you want to eat at a restaurant that insists on not serving 'your kind'?"

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

I can't reasonably expect you to remember my posts on that topic over the past few years and in various threads, so it's okay. But I do know very well that my opinion is that the most elegant solution to these issues, now that we know gender isn't strictly binary, is to just lump all humans into a single "humans" category for everything (bathrooms, the Olympics, etc.)

It's the only way to have no ambiguity, no grey areas, no court fights ever on anything gender-related.

Society may decide to go that route but it still would mean several decades and generations of women's rights struggles were all for nothing and nullified.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Society may decide to go that route but it still would mean several decades and generations of women's rights struggles were all for nothing and nullified.

SSP is not really the land of robust female representation. For all the apparent attention paid to diversity, do we have a bunch of guys who have implicitly decided that the women's rights angle of this is not important? It's easy to imagine a bunch of males accepting to live with the loss of women's sports leagues for example.

From what I can tell, female identified trans vs. certain feminists is the biggest fault line that has clearly articulated conflicts of goals and values associated with it.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lio45

Same for me, but that's not necessarily everyone's opinion.



Principle.

It's the exact same age-old question as "why would you want to have your scrotum hair ripped off by someone who's never done that and doesn't want to do it?", "why would you want to spend several hours seated on a plane right next to someone who's made sick by your presence?", and "why would you want to eat at a restaurant that insists on not serving 'your kind'?"

Originally Posted by Acajack

Society may decide to go that route but it still would mean several decades and generations of women's rights struggles were all for nothing and nullified.

I'd say the status quo is a manageable level of ridiculousness - the number of incidences of apples being labeled as oranges is low enough that it doesn't really matter. But if it goes further in the illogical direction, where it is an everyday occurrence to have to handle men saying they are women, then some actually logical guidelines will have to be found.

I suspect in reality we'll just get bored of it as more gender changing happens, with each one becoming iteratively less interesting to the media and likely more obviously silly. Ideally, we'll live in a future where it matters less whether you are male or female to your lived experience, such that there is no need to make a song and dance of how people have flicked a switch from one gender to the other. And we'll look back at this silliness as an interesting historical case study.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

SSP is not really the land of robust female representation. For all the apparent attention paid to diversity, do we have a bunch of guys who have implicitly decided that the women's rights angle of this is not important? It's easy to imagine a bunch of males accepting to live with the loss of women's sports leagues for example.

From what I can tell, female identified trans vs. certain feminists is the biggest fault line that has clearly articulated conflicts of goals and values associated with it.

It is Saturday night and I am drinking a nice Pinot Noir, so I will say that women's rights are often playing second and third fiddle in the current SJW woke culture wars. Women's rights just ain't what they used to be. They don't score the same points that they used to.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'd say the status quo is a manageable level of ridiculousness - the number of incidences of apples being labeled as oranges is low enough that it doesn't really matter. But if it goes further in the illogical direction, where it is an everyday occurrence to have to handle men saying they are women, then some actually logical guidelines will have to be found.

I suspect in reality we'll just get bored of it as more gender changing happens, with each one becoming iteratively less interesting to the media and likely more obviously silly. Ideally, we'll live in a future where it matters less whether you are male or female to your lived experience, such that there is no need to make a song and dance of how people have flicked a switch from one gender to the other. And we'll look back at this silliness as an interesting historical case study.

This is plausible and makes sense but would such a scenario be sufficient to eliminate all sexual/gender discrimination that has existed for centuries?

I.e. would it be an automatic plus for cis women?

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by someone123

...that the women's rights angle of this is not important?

There's a paradigmatic stumbling block here that may well be as intractable as that with abortion, where it comes down to one side declaring "it's murder, therefore the right of women to have abortions is logically moot." To wit: "Trans women are women, therefore you diminish women's rights when you deny trans women the ability to participate in any sphere of human activity normally exclusive to women. Claiming that you are protecting women's rights when you deny trans women any of those rights is illogical."

I disagree with both of those contentions, and I think it's demonstrably clear that they are not logically, ethically or morally coherent, but their proponents are so trapped in their ideological rabbit holes so as to be immune from persuasion otherwise (as can be seen in this thread and that other one where the trans thing props up).

[Acajack]

Some cis women are also "karens", right?

So because of this is also difficult for the woke crowd to accept that women as a broad group should be defended tooth and nail.

In woke parlance there is no trans karen meme evoking a person worthy of scorn. There is also no analogous Muslim meme in the karen sense, either.

[lio45]

Isn't this Trans Karen who demands to speak to the manager of the beauty salon after getting told they won't wax her scrotum/penis, then sues the place in court, actually a perfect example of the type? Clearly they exist...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It is Saturday night and I am drinking a nice Pinot Noir, so I ...

Meanwhile, I drank a (nearly full) leftover quart of Bud from the evening before we became a Red zone. I put a cap on it then hid it in the basement and I remembered it today. I drank more beer the last few months than the previous 15 years combined, and I don't even like beer (it's part of doing business; I liken it to golf, which I also greatly dislike).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Isn't this Trans Karen who demands to speak to the manager of the beauty salon after getting told they won't wax her scrotum/penis, then sues the place in court, actually a perfect example of the type? Clearly they exist...

Clearly, but not viewed or denounced as such.

[lio45]

Except by us

[Acajack]

Centre-left publication, rated highly factual by media bias sites.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/n...t-be-contained

I landed on campus identified as a progressive activist, ready to spend my weekends marching the streets of D.C. against the Trump administration, against Brett Kavanaugh, against the evils of capitalism and corruption. Of course I had heard rumors of anti-Israel activism that occasionally “crossed a line,” but these stories came from them. You know ... The AIPAC Jews, the Trump Jews, the right-wingers.

That was then. Two years later, I am sitting in my childhood bedroom comforting dozens of Jewish students scattered across the country on social media.

Houston, we do have a problem.

[Acajack]

Article this weekend in Le Point on cancel culture in Canada. Le Point is bascially France's equivalent to Time or Maclean's.

Guest is Mathieu Bock Côté, an intellectual firebrand identity politics guy. Controversial in a Jordan Peterson kind of way.

He is a regular columnist in a major French newspaper and frequently invited on panels over there. I have mentioned before that he is the most visible and influential Canadian commentator in France. The French chattering classes' take on Canada often comes from what he says.

First couple of lines in this article (from the journalist, not Mathieu, translated by yours truly:

Is Canadian cancel culture even more virulent than its American cousin? In Justin Trudeau's diverse and inclusive land, those who dare question this diktat have been warned. (...) And Quebec isn't immune to the phenomenon, even if the resistance there seems a bit stronger than elsewhere.

https://www.lepoint.fr/postillon/boc...04323_3961.php

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Houston, we do have a problem.

We have a problem but we have a likely solution: mandatory anti-antisemitism classes for every single uOttawa student from now on!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

We have a problem but we have a likely solution: mandatory anti-antisemitism classes for every single uOttawa student from now on!

Various factors have contributed to the left in western countries no longer seeing Jews as the little guy at all.

Complaining about anti-semitism on a US university campus these days has about as much cred as complaining about francophobia in Anglo Canada.

[rousseau]

Yeah, sure, nothing to see here.

Joe Biden says it is “time to heal” America’s divisions after the Trump presidency, and The Wall Street Journal has praised him for saying so. Presumably he intends less rancor with the press as part of this mandate, but on that score my run-in with the Biden team this weekend was very Trumpian.

The catalyst was our Saturday op-ed by Joseph Epstein, “Is There a Doctor in the White House? Not if You Need an M.D.” Mr. Epstein, a longtime contributor, criticized the habit of people with Ph.D.s or other doctorates calling themselves “Dr.” as highfalutin, using Jill Biden as Exhibit A. Mr. Epstein can be acerbic, and his piece began: “Madame First Lady—Mrs. Biden—Jill—kiddo: a bit of advice on what may seem like a small but I think is a not unimportant matter. Any chance you might drop the ‘Dr.’ before your name?”

This has triggered a flood of media and Twitter criticism, including demands that I retract the piece, apologize personally to Mrs. Biden, ban Mr. Epstein for all time, and resign and think upon my sins. The complaints began as a trickle but became a torrent after the Biden media team elevated Mr. Epstein’s work in what was clearly a political strategy.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bid...ck-11607900812

Hasn't there always been a consensus understanding that anyone not a medical doctor using the honorific "Dr." in front of his/her name outside of the narrow confines of academic CVs is a pretentious twat? I studied liberal arts in university and have friends and family with PhDs, and in my lifetime I don't think I've ever seen or heard a "Dr." in reference to any of these people.

The inane accusations of sexism are worrying. I used to roll my eyes at far right types claiming that "you can't criticize a woman anymore," thinking it ham-fisted and not reflective of reality, but blimey...the shrill mob are calling for heads because of "misogyny." They're serving this idiotic fodder up on a silver platter for the grievance-based right, who are sneering at the pleas of the Biden side of America to put the past behind them and unify.

Can you blame them?

This fits in with Matt Taibbi's scathing criticism of the press's capitulation to liberal-side directives to ignore anything critical of Biden in the run up to the election, including censorship by social media giants of what was called "misinformation. Whatever happened to "the answer to bad speech is more speech"? Has that ship completely sailed?

This hyper-sensitive brittleness means danger. We know that from documentaries about the animal kingdom. And fugging hell, we just went through four years of it. It would be a lot more reassuring if the president-elect's people/supporters in the media could express their dislike of a pointed but ultimately inconsequential opinion piece in a measured, proportionate way instead of flinging patently crazy accusations while calling for cancellations and denunciations like the shrill harpies they are.

[MolsonExport]

My take on it is that Epstein is that he is a smug asshole who can't stand the fact that a woman newly elevated to prominence should be able to use an honorific that she earned. I can't believe that people are getting upset that she wants to use the title. I mean, why the fuck should that be a problem?

I don't use "Dr." outside of academia (and not even that much within it), but I fucking worked extremely hard to earn the privilege to do so.

did anyone have a problem with Henry Kissinger using the honorific?

this anti-wokism (assholism) is far worse than wokism (and I am not in favor of extreme wokism, but neither am I in favor of tokenism)

I am going to check out of this thread for good as it puts me in an extremely sour mood whenever I make the mistake of entering. No wonder SSP is perceived as unwelcoming to women.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

My take on it is that Epstein is that he is a smug asshole who can't stand the fact that a woman newly elevated to prominence should be able to use an honorific that she earned. I can't believe that people are getting upset that she wants to use the title. I mean, why the fuck should that be a problem?

Well said.

What a pointless axe for Epstein to grind. It doesn't elevate discourse, because there's nothing to really debate about. The woman earned the degree. It allows her the privilege of using a title. But hey, the article probably got clicks.

We couldn't go back to boring after 4 years, could we? Well reasoned debate?

It was a foolish article by Epstein. It doesn't deserve acknowledgement, because it was the equivalent of bored kids throwing rocks at a hornet's next.