Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Discuss H&R posts and other Reason articles here.
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25919
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Mo »

Totally agree. I think that’s been you, me and Highway’s POV on the whole cancel culture debate.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 31540
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by thoreau »

Is there an acceptable way to oppose cancel culture?
"...if that monkey gets any smarter it's going to start shorting TSLA."
--JD
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21242
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

thoreau wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 00:35 Is there an acceptable way to oppose cancel culture?
Become a successful stand-up comic. The money's good, too.
User avatar
Shem
Posts: 8969
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Shem »

thoreau wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 00:35 Is there an acceptable way to oppose cancel culture?
Not using right-wing scare terms is a good start. "Cancel culture" is just the conservative term for leftists who rediscovered that boycotts are really cool and totally legal, and started using them the way conservatives have been doing for decades, at least. "We shouldn't boycott people just because we disagree with them" is legitimate. "Cancel culture is running amok" is a Fox News talking point.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21242
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Shem wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 01:45
thoreau wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 00:35 Is there an acceptable way to oppose cancel culture?
Not using right-wing scare terms is a good start for it. "Cancel culture" is just the conservative term for leftists who rediscovered that boycotts are really cool and totally legal, and started using them the way conservatives have been doing for decades, at least. "We shouldn't boycott people just because we disagree with them" is legitimate. "Cancel culture is running amok" is a Fox News talking point.
Yeah, see, I don't think Bill Burr or Dave Chappelle take their cues from Fox News.
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 31540
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by thoreau »

OK, so beyond excising that particular term from my vocabulary, what else can I do so that I can legitimately object to, say, a Twitter pile-on against someone whose speech was supposedly offensive?
"...if that monkey gets any smarter it's going to start shorting TSLA."
--JD
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25919
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Mo »

D.A. Ridgely wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 01:47
Shem wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 01:45
thoreau wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 00:35 Is there an acceptable way to oppose cancel culture?
Not using right-wing scare terms is a good start for it. "Cancel culture" is just the conservative term for leftists who rediscovered that boycotts are really cool and totally legal, and started using them the way conservatives have been doing for decades, at least. "We shouldn't boycott people just because we disagree with them" is legitimate. "Cancel culture is running amok" is a Fox News talking point.
Yeah, see, I don't think Bill Burr or Dave Chappelle take their cues from Fox News.
Comedians have been complaining about “You can’t say X” for my entire life and for at least a decade before I was born. If there weren’t societal taboos, Chapelle and Burr would lose 70% of their schtick. It’s not a criticism, but a lot of comedians need the existence of polite societal norms to transgress against. And for comedians like Jesenik, it’s 99% of their schtick.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21242
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Mo wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 09:32
D.A. Ridgely wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 01:47
Shem wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 01:45
thoreau wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 00:35 Is there an acceptable way to oppose cancel culture?
Not using right-wing scare terms is a good start for it. "Cancel culture" is just the conservative term for leftists who rediscovered that boycotts are really cool and totally legal, and started using them the way conservatives have been doing for decades, at least. "We shouldn't boycott people just because we disagree with them" is legitimate. "Cancel culture is running amok" is a Fox News talking point.
Yeah, see, I don't think Bill Burr or Dave Chappelle take their cues from Fox News.
Comedians have been complaining about “You can’t say X” for my entire life and for at least a decade before I was born. If there weren’t societal taboos, Chapelle and Burr would lose 70% of their shtick. It’s not a criticism, but a lot of comedians need the existence of polite societal norms to transgress against. And for comedians like Jesenik, it’s 99% of their schtick.
Yeah, no. There are certainly "shock" comics and comics who do nothing but "blue material" but that hardly covers the majority of comics past or present. There's nothing transgressive about Jerry Seinfield or Jimmy Fallon, Brian Regan, Jim Gaffigan, Jay Leno, etc. Polite societal norms are *one* sort of human folly but comedians draw from all of the latter, whether personal or general, transgressive or silly. Honestly, "you can't say X" has been a small part of a small number of comics in my lifetime, though increasingly so in recent years. It was maybe one percent of all of George Carlin's material. Indeed, it didn't become Lenny Bruce's "shtick" until he started getting busted by the police. If you think "You can't say X" is 70 percent of Chappelle's material, you can't have been watching him until the last several years. Is much of his material about being black in America? Sure. But that's not at all the same thing as complaining about what he can or can't say on stage. And the same is true of Chris Rock, Marc Maron, Todd Barry, Norm Macdonald, etc.

What has become true in recent years is that a much larger number of comics who make their living saying stuff they think will get a laugh have been to one degree or another threatened by cancel culture (not a registered Fox News talking point), so it's become a part of the routine of more comics than at any time in living past as many have foregone lucrative college and corporate gigs because of the censorious preconditions of being hired and because comics use their own experiences including their professional experiences as sources of material.

Comedy, including but not limited to stand-up, is an art form that more than any other art form requires its performers to be bad in public so they can be good in public, requires them to take risks on stage in order to get to the laughs regardless of what 'sort' of comedian they are. They might think of themselves as social critics, as well. I'm sure many do. But what all of them have in common is that what they first and foremost care about is whether what they say gets laughs and the only way any comic can discover that is by trying the joke on real people. That's where both the rehearsing and the rewriting occurs. If Jesenik didn't find he was getting better reactions from the dark jokes, he'd have gone in another direction. I could mention another dozen or so comics with, as you put it, shticks because after a dozen or so years trying to find a persona and a voice that works for them they finally stumbled on one.

Mind you, if a college or corporate event wants to tell a prospective comic she can't do certain sorts of material, that's their right. And working comedians understand that television gigs, etc. are going to insist they be more circumspect. But we've reached a point of hypersensitivity over largely the wrong sorts of 'triggers' to the point where a couple of customers at a comedy club bitch on comment cards about some joke and for the first time since practically Lenny Bruce we've got club owners trying to pre-edit acts. And it's those little clubs upon which comedians almost exclusively depend to create material.

Finally, again, whatever else you want to say about comics, Fox News propagandists, they ain't.
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 31110
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Warren »

D.A. Ridgely wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 12:14
Mo wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 09:32
D.A. Ridgely wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 01:47
Shem wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 01:45
thoreau wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 00:35 Is there an acceptable way to oppose cancel culture?
Not using right-wing scare terms is a good start for it. "Cancel culture" is just the conservative term for leftists who rediscovered that boycotts are really cool and totally legal, and started using them the way conservatives have been doing for decades, at least. "We shouldn't boycott people just because we disagree with them" is legitimate. "Cancel culture is running amok" is a Fox News talking point.
Yeah, see, I don't think Bill Burr or Dave Chappelle take their cues from Fox News.
Comedians have been complaining about “You can’t say X” for my entire life and for at least a decade before I was born. If there weren’t societal taboos, Chapelle and Burr would lose 70% of their shtick. It’s not a criticism, but a lot of comedians need the existence of polite societal norms to transgress against. And for comedians like Jesenik, it’s 99% of their schtick.
Yeah, no. There are certainly "shock" comics and comics who do nothing but "blue material" but that hardly covers the majority of comics past or present. There's nothing transgressive about Jerry Seinfield or Jimmy Fallon, Brian Regan, Jim Gaffigan, Jay Leno, etc. Polite societal norms are *one* sort of human folly but comedians draw from all of the latter, whether personal or general, transgressive or silly. Honestly, "you can't say X" has been a small part of a small number of comics in my lifetime, though increasingly so in recent years. It was maybe one percent of all of George Carlin's material. Indeed, it didn't become Lenny Bruce's "shtick" until he started getting busted by the police. If you think "You can't say X" is 70 percent of Chappelle's material, you can't have been watching him until the last several years. Is much of his material about being black in America? Sure. But that's not at all the same thing as complaining about what he can or can't say on stage. And the same is true of Chris Rock, Marc Maron, Todd Barry, Norm Macdonald, etc.

What has become true in recent years is that a much larger number of comics who make their living saying stuff they think will get a laugh have been to one degree or another threatened by cancel culture (not a registered Fox News talking point), so it's become a part of the routine of more comics than at any time in living past as many have foregone lucrative college and corporate gigs because of the censorious preconditions of being hired and because comics use their own experiences including their professional experiences as sources of material.

Comedy, including but not limited to stand-up, is an art form that more than any other art form requires its performers to be bad in public so they can be good in public, requires them to take risks on stage in order to get to the laughs regardless of what 'sort' of comedian they are. They might think of themselves as social critics, as well. I'm sure many do. But what all of them have in common is that what they first and foremost care about is whether what they say gets laughs and the only way any comic can discover that is by trying the joke on real people. That's where both the rehearsing and the rewriting occurs. If Jesenik didn't find he was getting better reactions from the dark jokes, he'd have gone in another direction. I could mention another dozen or so comics with, as you put it, shticks because after a dozen or so years trying to find a persona and a voice that works for them they finally stumbled on one.

Mind you, if a college or corporate event wants to tell a prospective comic she can't do certain sorts of material, that's their right. And working comedians understand that television gigs, etc. are going to insist they be more circumspect. But we've reached a point of hypersensitivity over largely the wrong sorts of 'triggers' to the point where a couple of customers at a comedy club bitch on comment cards about some joke and for the first time since practically Lenny Bruce we've got club owners trying to pre-edit acts. And it's those little clubs upon which comedians almost exclusively depend to create material.

Finally, again, whatever else you want to say about comics, Fox News propagandists, they ain't.
A to the Men
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 31540
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by thoreau »

Successful comedians like their tax cuts as much as any other economically successful group. It's no surprise that they'd eventually get sucked into the Fox News black hole and start supporting illiberal right-wing notions like tolerance for edgy speech. It starts with "free speech" and next thing you know they're questioning Georgia election results and threatening Anthony Fauci.
"...if that monkey gets any smarter it's going to start shorting TSLA."
--JD
User avatar
Shem
Posts: 8969
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Shem »

D.A. Ridgely wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 01:47
Shem wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 01:45
thoreau wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 00:35 Is there an acceptable way to oppose cancel culture?
Not using right-wing scare terms is a good start for it. "Cancel culture" is just the conservative term for leftists who rediscovered that boycotts are really cool and totally legal, and started using them the way conservatives have been doing for decades, at least. "We shouldn't boycott people just because we disagree with them" is legitimate. "Cancel culture is running amok" is a Fox News talking point.
Yeah, see, I don't think Bill Burr or Dave Chappelle take their cues from Fox News.
Is everyone who ever talked about "Welfare Queens" a big supporter of Ronald Reagan? Or, is it possible to use someone's framing of an argument even if you don't necessarily agree with them about anything else?
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21242
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Shem wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 15:20
D.A. Ridgely wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 01:47
Shem wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 01:45
thoreau wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 00:35 Is there an acceptable way to oppose cancel culture?
Not using right-wing scare terms is a good start for it. "Cancel culture" is just the conservative term for leftists who rediscovered that boycotts are really cool and totally legal, and started using them the way conservatives have been doing for decades, at least. "We shouldn't boycott people just because we disagree with them" is legitimate. "Cancel culture is running amok" is a Fox News talking point.
Yeah, see, I don't think Bill Burr or Dave Chappelle take their cues from Fox News.
Is everyone who ever talked about "Welfare Queens" a big supporter of Ronald Reagan? Or, is it possible to use someone's framing of an argument even if you don't necessarily agree with them about anything else?
Sure, but you're the one who claimed "Cancel culture is running amok" is a Fox News talking point and that "cancel culture is just a right-wing scare term. And that's something between a half-truth and flat out bullshit.
User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 19622
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by lunchstealer »

thoreau wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 02:29 OK, so beyond excising that particular term from my vocabulary, what else can I do so that I can legitimately object to, say, a Twitter pile-on against someone whose speech was supposedly offensive?
The serious answer to that is proportionality. John Oliver spake my mind on this one.
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25919
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Mo »

D.A. Ridgely wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 12:14
Mo wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 09:32
D.A. Ridgely wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 01:47
Shem wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 01:45
thoreau wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 00:35 Is there an acceptable way to oppose cancel culture?
Not using right-wing scare terms is a good start for it. "Cancel culture" is just the conservative term for leftists who rediscovered that boycotts are really cool and totally legal, and started using them the way conservatives have been doing for decades, at least. "We shouldn't boycott people just because we disagree with them" is legitimate. "Cancel culture is running amok" is a Fox News talking point.
Yeah, see, I don't think Bill Burr or Dave Chappelle take their cues from Fox News.
Comedians have been complaining about “You can’t say X” for my entire life and for at least a decade before I was born. If there weren’t societal taboos, Chapelle and Burr would lose 70% of their shtick. It’s not a criticism, but a lot of comedians need the existence of polite societal norms to transgress against. And for comedians like Jesenik, it’s 99% of their schtick.
Yeah, no. There are certainly "shock" comics and comics who do nothing but "blue material" but that hardly covers the majority of comics past or present. There's nothing transgressive about Jerry Seinfield or Jimmy Fallon, Brian Regan, Jim Gaffigan, Jay Leno, etc. Polite societal norms are *one* sort of human folly but comedians draw from all of the latter, whether personal or general, transgressive or silly. Honestly, "you can't say X" has been a small part of a small number of comics in my lifetime, though increasingly so in recent years. It was maybe one percent of all of George Carlin's material. Indeed, it didn't become Lenny Bruce's "shtick" until he started getting busted by the police. If you think "You can't say X" is 70 percent of Chappelle's material, you can't have been watching him until the last several years. Is much of his material about being black in America? Sure. But that's not at all the same thing as complaining about what he can or can't say on stage. And the same is true of Chris Rock, Marc Maron, Todd Barry, Norm Macdonald, etc.

What has become true in recent years is that a much larger number of comics who make their living saying stuff they think will get a laugh have been to one degree or another threatened by cancel culture (not a registered Fox News talking point), so it's become a part of the routine of more comics than at any time in living past as many have foregone lucrative college and corporate gigs because of the censorious preconditions of being hired and because comics use their own experiences including their professional experiences as sources of material.

Comedy, including but not limited to stand-up, is an art form that more than any other art form requires its performers to be bad in public so they can be good in public, requires them to take risks on stage in order to get to the laughs regardless of what 'sort' of comedian they are. They might think of themselves as social critics, as well. I'm sure many do. But what all of them have in common is that what they first and foremost care about is whether what they say gets laughs and the only way any comic can discover that is by trying the joke on real people. That's where both the rehearsing and the rewriting occurs. If Jesenik didn't find he was getting better reactions from the dark jokes, he'd have gone in another direction. I could mention another dozen or so comics with, as you put it, shticks because after a dozen or so years trying to find a persona and a voice that works for them they finally stumbled on one.

Mind you, if a college or corporate event wants to tell a prospective comic she can't do certain sorts of material, that's their right. And working comedians understand that television gigs, etc. are going to insist they be more circumspect. But we've reached a point of hypersensitivity over largely the wrong sorts of 'triggers' to the point where a couple of customers at a comedy club bitch on comment cards about some joke and for the first time since practically Lenny Bruce we've got club owners trying to pre-edit acts. And it's those little clubs upon which comedians almost exclusively depend to create material.

Finally, again, whatever else you want to say about comics, Fox News propagandists, they ain't.
Nowhere did I say complaining about saying “you can’t say x” was 70% of their work. Tweaking societal taboos is way more than complaining about cancel culture. Tweaking taboos is also way more than being a shock comic. And I pretty clearly covered that there is a wide array of different styles just by saying that there’s a difference between Jeselnik and Chapelle. Chris Rock’s “black people” bit is primarily about racist assumptions in societies and how people need to take responsibility and some people are worthy of being looked down upon. But what makes it funny and transgressive is that it tweaks taboos on acceptable language. That’s like the joke that Trump made comedians’ job harder because nothing they can say is more ridiculous than reality. Lots of comedy involves crossing the lines of polite conversation (or at least dancing on it) and that’s what makes it funny and a little uncomfortable. If there’s nothing that’s a bit wrong, comedy loses a rich vein.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25739
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by JasonL »

It can't come soon enough, but it will come. Ken White is right about one thing, there is a marketplace of ideas involved in the crying to get people fired, lying about harms and threats to themselves for any alternative expression, and so on. For this thing that is definitely not happening and absolutely nothing new, all we have to do is wait. People who have no talent other than crying about being confronted with something uncomfortable soon be on the other end of credibility. Zeus willing, they will become unemployable hobos in recognition for their efforts to burn down their previous associations, employers and colleagues. It doesn't really matter how wrong Mo and Shem are here, very significantly wrong, but where they are right is there isn't really anything to "do" about it other than form associations where people who behave this way are themselves pariahs. Certainly not a set of laws or regulations or whatever. It may take 3 years or so for the broad culture to treat the crying children they way they deserve to be treated, bu tin the mean time, find media and platforms and associations that simply ignore these people. It will be fine long run.
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25919
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Mo »

Do the crying babies include the WSJ editorial board (who fired Stephens and Weiss for being insufficient to Trumpy), the well-heeled donors of magazines like NR and Reason or media execs at Fox and Sinclair? Or is it different because the crying babies on the left are on Twitter rather than doing quiet pressure campaigns?
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 31110
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Warren »

JasonL wrote: 07 Dec 2020, 10:16 ...but where they are right is there isn't really anything to "do" about it...
I have been coming to the position that there isn't anything to do about anything. There is literally nothing I as an individual can be doing to help make America better. The only thing to "do" is take note of how America is changing and react accordingly. Start with the three Gs; Gold, Guns, and Golf.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25739
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by JasonL »

Warren wrote: 07 Dec 2020, 10:35
JasonL wrote: 07 Dec 2020, 10:16 ...but where they are right is there isn't really anything to "do" about it...
I have been coming to the position that there isn't anything to do about anything. There is literally nothing I as an individual can be doing to help make America better. The only thing to "do" is take note of how America is changing and react accordingly. Start with the three Gs; Gold, Guns, and Golf.
I think that’s right. You can’t make people not be awful or vote for stupid things. There is no worthwhile consensus on the left or right. Find whatever few interesting people you can and chat with them and drink your drink smoke your smoke and try your best to ignore them. If dumbasses try to burn your house down shoot them. Diversify savings. Vote however our want or not at all. Move somewhere else if you really hate how it’s going.
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25739
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by JasonL »

Mo wrote: 07 Dec 2020, 10:32 Do the crying babies include the WSJ editorial board (who fired Stephens and Weiss for being insufficient to Trumpy), the well-heeled donors of magazines like NR and Reason or media execs at Fox and Sinclair? Or is it different because the crying babies on the left are on Twitter rather than doing quiet pressure campaigns?
Oh that totally matters in the sense of burning down people publicly and seeking pile on vs privately makes you even greater hobo material. You lead a team. You have disagreement how do you want it handled?
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 31540
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by thoreau »

FWIW, I just posted something in defense of this student club that is being preemptively canceled.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/202 ... t-divisive

How many of these do I have to weigh in on before I accumulate enough good behavior tokens to defend an author accused of cultural appropriation?
"...if that monkey gets any smarter it's going to start shorting TSLA."
--JD
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25739
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by JasonL »

thoreau wrote: 07 Dec 2020, 11:20 FWIW, I just posted something in defense of this student club that is being preemptively canceled.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/202 ... t-divisive

How many of these do I have to weigh in on before I accumulate enough good behavior tokens to defend an author accused of cultural appropriation?
No tokens. There is no assumption of good faith. If you think there’s something wrong with demonstrating to get books from Korean taco recipe authors pulled you are just trumpy spitting Fox News talking points. You are basically Sean Hannity. Well, you and Salman Rushdie and Noam Chomsky who are all making this up to further Trumps political career.
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 31540
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by thoreau »

JasonL wrote: 07 Dec 2020, 11:27
thoreau wrote: 07 Dec 2020, 11:20 FWIW, I just posted something in defense of this student club that is being preemptively canceled.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/202 ... t-divisive

How many of these do I have to weigh in on before I accumulate enough good behavior tokens to defend an author accused of cultural appropriation?
No tokens. There is no assumption of good faith. If you think there’s something wrong with demonstrating to get books from Korean taco recipe authors pulled you are just trumpy spitting Fox News talking points. You are basically Sean Hannity. Well, you and Salman Rushdie and Noam Chomsky who are all making this up to further Trumps political career.
Don't forget Chris Rock. He's basically Alan Keyes with better punchlines.
"...if that monkey gets any smarter it's going to start shorting TSLA."
--JD
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21242
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

thoreau wrote: 07 Dec 2020, 11:20 FWIW, I just posted something in defense of this student club that is being preemptively canceled.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/202 ... t-divisive

How many of these do I have to weigh in on before I accumulate enough good behavior tokens to defend an author accused of cultural appropriation?
It's a Roman Catholic school. And a real one, not a merely titular one like Georgetown. As such, it's no more supposed to be a bastion of accommodation or tolerance than, say, Liberty University. *shrug*
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 31540
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by thoreau »

D.A. Ridgely wrote: 07 Dec 2020, 11:42
thoreau wrote: 07 Dec 2020, 11:20 FWIW, I just posted something in defense of this student club that is being preemptively canceled.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/202 ... t-divisive

How many of these do I have to weigh in on before I accumulate enough good behavior tokens to defend an author accused of cultural appropriation?
It's a Roman Catholic school. And a real one, not a merely titular one like Georgetown. As such, it's no more supposed to be a bastion of accommodation or tolerance than, say, Liberty University. *shrug*
Eh, I'm a real Catholic, which is to say that I am not great on Mass attendance but I know damn well that my self-identification is real and meaningful to me. My pronouns are in English because I never took Latin, but I went to a Franciscan school for 8 years. And I even taught (very briefly) at Georgetown. (Again, very briefly. I was as adjunct as an adjunct can be, but damnit, I taught there, I got a paycheck from them, I sat next to an actual clergyman in adjunct orientation, and I got to tell my very Catholic grandparents that I taught there. I even prayed in the chapel.)

So I'll criticize U. Dallas, no matter how much gryllularity I get about "But why are we talking about this when we do not participate in the school's activities?" I'm in higher ed, they're in higher ed, and analyzing their situation is useful for examining and drawing lines that might matter in situations closer to home.
"...if that monkey gets any smarter it's going to start shorting TSLA."
--JD
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21242
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

thoreau wrote: 07 Dec 2020, 12:31
D.A. Ridgely wrote: 07 Dec 2020, 11:42
thoreau wrote: 07 Dec 2020, 11:20 FWIW, I just posted something in defense of this student club that is being preemptively canceled.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/202 ... t-divisive

How many of these do I have to weigh in on before I accumulate enough good behavior tokens to defend an author accused of cultural appropriation?
It's a Roman Catholic school. And a real one, not a merely titular one like Georgetown. As such, it's no more supposed to be a bastion of accommodation or tolerance than, say, Liberty University. *shrug*
Eh, I'm a real Catholic, which is to say that I am not great on Mass attendance but I know damn well that my self-identification is real and meaningful to me. My pronouns are, um, well, I never took Latin. And I went to a Franciscan school for 8 years. And I even taught (very briefly) at Georgetown. (Again, very briefly. I was as adjunct as an adjunct can be, but damnit, I taught there, I got a paycheck from them, I sat next to an actual clergyman in adjunct orientation, and I got to tell my very Catholic grandparents that I taught there. I even prayed in the chapel.)

So I'll criticize U. Dallas, no matter how much gryllularity I get about "But why are we talking about this when we do not participate in the school's activities?" I'm in higher ed, they're in higher ed, and analyzing their situation is useful for examining and drawing lines that might matter in situations closer to home.
Sure, and I'm not criticizing your self-identity or, for that matter, the per se fact of your criticism of the University of Dallas, but there's a significant difference between UD and Georgetown (as there is between Georgetown and Catholic University in D.C.) and I can't imagine you posting the same complaint about Liberty University. Liberty University is "higher ed," too, right?
Post Reply