Jump to content

List of Prohibited Ideas


Chinahand
 Share

Recommended Posts

Woke is a big issue nowadays, or so social media seems to tell me.

My understanding of it is a bit limited, but my basic understanding is that if you are woke you believe that we know enough about certain issues that there is no need for these issues to still be open to debate or to be accepted in society.  

This is where cancel culture comes in - people who still wish to debate these issues, or hold opinions on them that aren't woke are beyond the pale and should be persona non grata.

So what ideas are beyond the pale?

I'd like to make it very clear, I don't necessarily agree with any of the ideas I'm including as being on a woke list of prohibited ideas.  I don't necessarily disagree with them either.

This is where I'm cautious of Wokism.  I'm in favour of debate and as clearly as possible laying out the complexities and evidence around an issue.  The world is a hugely complex place and ideas where it may seem all the issues are understood may in fact be open to re-interpretation when viewed more globally.

So - what are third rail issues in contemporary woke society?

 1) The idea that racism isn't the main cause of higher rates of social exclusion amongst certain racial minorities.

2) The idea that sexism isn't the main cause of lower rates of female (male) participation in STEM (caring) professions.

3) The idea that some trans-sexual women have an unfair advantage when competing in women's sport.

4) The idea that it is ok to segregate some spaces by biological sex rather than gender identification.

5) The idea that colonialism brought social and economic benefits to the people's colonised and their descendants.

 

Ha, it's interesting trying to write these statements.  I'm aware they are very sensitive and I'm trying to do it as neutrally as possible.  How am I doing?  Got any others. 

 

Are there a similar set of ideas people on the right can't countenance?

1) The idea that larger government can bring about social benefits.

 

Anyway, all thoughts welcome.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Declan said:

Isn't Rowling's point #4?

3 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

I'd say JKR is more #4 than #3. 

Yep. Having somehow completely failed to see #4 on first reading, I'd say that my comprehension is more at fault than my numeracy. Apologies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Declan said:

Woke is a fictional construct created to shut down criticism of various types of discrimination.

As a general point "woke" has echoes of that older hackneyed phrase, "political correctness gone mad", but it goes far beyond that when it comes to the cancel sanctions that follow. Not a novel observation I know, but the ubiquity of social media these days, with its resulting groupthink, probably goes a long way towards explaining that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chinahand said:

My understanding of it is a bit limited, but my basic understanding is that if you are woke you believe that we know enough about certain issues that there is no need for these issues to still be open to debate or to be accepted in society.  

Er, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chinahand said:

This is where cancel culture comes in - people who still wish to debate these issues, or hold opinions on them that aren't woke are beyond the pale and should be persona non grata.

Also this is entirely false. These issues are still debated, in a productive respectful manner (and sometimes not) very very frequently.

What tends to make people upset at a person, is when they're not debating it, but using their platform with an audience of millions to state their opinion as fact. But even then many people get away with that, Shapiro, Rogan etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing new about denial of platform. It’s been applied to left and right, to conservatives and radicals, “revolutionaries”, “extremists”, people outside the mainstream. Think about suppression of political expression by British governments of Makarios, Kenyatta, IRA etc. 

When I was at university it was supporters of South Africa and unreconstructed Thatcherite Monetarists, Keith Joseph, and the like.

And if, after pressure from the student body, the authorities refused use of university property, they hired a room in a hotel, or elsewhere, and went ahead in any event. Debate was not stifled.

I think two things have changed.

first, the right have made it compulsory that universities provide a platform, because they’re “publicly funded”. Except they aren’t, at least not to the extent they were in the 60’s and 70’s. It’s raised the stakes an the chance of friction. Foolish move. Those who want to express offensive opinion can now hide behind the fuss about where they speak, distracting and conflating location, rather than content.

second, social media and internet which has, a. given wider coverage to extreme ideas and politics, and, b. allowed much wider, and public, reaction and response. And the other side, whoever they are, fight back.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can answer your number 3. Though I am not giving you the full thesis answer as i would be writing for hours.

Its not as straightforward as that. Those who think that have a very simplistic world view of “man body is better than womens body”. Whilst yes, testosterone gives a man a certain advantage in competing. In the case of transwomen, their testosterone levels are suppressed to the same levels as that of a cis female.

This causes several things to happen. The first is the development of secondary sex characteristics. Then you have the loss of 33% muscle mass and strength, bladder shrinks, skin thins and softens, pheromones change etc etc. And finally the suppression of testosterone caused the trans persons body to loose that previous ability to push further and harder.

And that’s just some of the hormonal effects. And even then we can’t just base this argument on hormones alone. For instance, you have genetics to consider. How genetically pre disposed is that person towards a certain type of ability. If you have someone male or female who has hit the genetic jackpot and is what you might consider a natural when it comes to athletic ability. The type who had to train half as long for twice the gains of the average person. Then the concept of gender goes straight out of the window as those people will generally always be top of their field and difficult for anyone but the most astute athletes to beat. 

When you read in the newspapers (usually the daily Mail) about a trans athlete winning competitions and beating records. They would have you believe that this is a regularly occurring common thing. However, it isn’t. There are thousands of trans people competing as their preferred gender, some not even in hormone therapy (In schools) and near all of them are not showing any significant advantage over their cis female counterparts. In all the years it had been since some American states allowed transwomen students to compete as their preferred gender. There have been maybe two…three at a push….this is out of hundreds….who have shown some kind of impressive performance. Taking this into account we can then ask the question, is this really a case of sex and gender?. Or could it be a case of genetic predisposition.

 

As I said there is so much more to this topic and I am very tired after being up at 5am for work 😅. But that’s a very short brief overview of some of the things you have to consider.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, John Wright said:

Except they aren’t, at least not to the extent they were in the 60’s and 70’s. It’s raised the stakes an the chance of friction. Foolish move. 

 

I was involved in the SU in the apathetic 90's and towards the end of that time there was talk of bringing loans for fees. (The NUS leaders of the time became New Labour ministers). One of the positives put forward was that this would turn students into consumers particularly in the ex-Polys. They would have to fork out a lot of money eventually and therefore would demand value for money and Uni's would need to provide an an acceptable level of tuition and access to resources. It wouldn't be like going to the HE equivalent of the local Comp and getting what you are given. 

Well consumers demand Fair Trade Coffee, or that the paper shop doesn't stock the Sun, and Starbucks and John Menzies make a commercial decision based on that. If the student consumers demand no platforming of X* and the university suppliers acquiesce is that different.  Or do we make a special case for Uni's?

 

 

 

 

 

 

* and Millenial and Gen Z students are more inclined to kick up a fuss than their Gen X forebears of the 90's who just wanted to be left alone to smoke decriminalised pot and listen to Nirvana. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Declan said:

I was involved in the SU in the apathetic 90's and towards the end of that time there was talk of bringing loans for fees. (The NUS leaders of the time became New Labour ministers). One of the positives put forward was that this would turn students into consumers particularly in the ex-Polys. They would have to fork out a lot of money eventually and therefore would demand value for money and Uni's would need to provide an an acceptable level of tuition and access to resources. It wouldn't be like going to the HE equivalent of the local Comp and getting what you are given. 

Well consumers demand Fair Trade Coffee, or that the paper shop doesn't stock the Sun, and Starbucks and John Menzies make a commercial decision based on that. If the student consumers demand no platforming of X* and the university suppliers acquiesce is that different.  Or do we make a special case for Uni's?

 

 

 

 

 

 

* and Millenial and Gen Z students are more inclined to kick up a fuss than their Gen X forebears of the 90's who just wanted to be left alone to smoke decriminalised pot and listen to Nirvana. 

The biggest campaign apart from the political fights between broad left and moderates, for 3 years, was soft loo paper rather than Izal medicated in the SU loos. 1974-8

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, John Wright said:

The biggest campaign apart from the political fights between broad left and moderates, for 3 years, was soft loo paper rather than Izal medicated in the SU loos. 1974-8

Well that's Boomers for you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...