1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Last post by Lord Dave on Today at 04:30:53 PM »Apparently people would prefer 10 years of lockdowns/deaths before a vaccine....
Go figure.
Go figure.
Recent Posts
2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Last post by garygreen on Today at 02:08:58 PM »theRe aRE nO lONg-tERM stUdieS on tHE VAccIne
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-021-00926-1
That’s not a vaccine study. It’s not even a great virus study because it’s focus is super narrow.
i'm aware it's not a vaccine study. i've been making the argument that "i won't take the vaccine because i don't know the long-term health effects" is silly because one also does not know the long-term health effects of covid-69. this study indicates that such long-term effects are worth taking seriously.
3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Last post by Rama Set on Today at 01:59:00 PM »theRe aRE nO lONg-tERM stUdieS on tHE VAccIne
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-021-00926-1
That’s not a vaccine study. It’s not even a great virus study because it’s focus is super narrow.
4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Last post by garygreen on Today at 01:51:02 PM »5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« Last post by Lord Dave on Today at 12:40:37 PM »I like how all Tom can do is post the same thing we've been saying about Trump for 4 years.
6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« Last post by Tom Bishop on Today at 12:10:47 PM »
7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« Last post by Tom Bishop on Today at 11:59:57 AM »8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cancel culture
« Last post by xasop on Today at 11:40:59 AM »And speaking of comedy, I believe that we as a society have reached a point where mocking and belittling marginalized groups publicly is no longer considered acceptable, and that's not a bad thing.This is absolutely not true. We've reached a point where mocking some marginalised groups, or even talking about them in a way that might be misconstrued as mocking, is considered unacceptable. But marginalised groups that aren't part of the social justice clique — poor, rural white people, for example; or lonely, virgin men — are not only still fair game, but it's now considered trendy in some circles to mock them.
Have we made progress, on the whole? I would have to say yes, because we now have support structures in place for demographics that were largely ignored until about 50 years ago. But that progress is not uniform.
9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cancel culture
« Last post by honk on Today at 02:48:34 AM »I feel like the OP has things a little backwards. The decision to "cancel" a public figure by deplatforming them, cutting ties with them, or otherwise professionally shunning them, is always going to rest with the studios, publishers, and other corporations that have the power to do so. It's not something that can be achieved by general consensus on Twitter. Netflix chose to stand by Chappelle and his material. WB and JK Rowling's publisher chose to stand by her. They absolutely could have chosen to "cancel" them instead, and that wouldn't have been any more definitive proof of the almighty power of cancel culture than the fact that they didn't is definitive proof of its impotence. Conversely, Hollywood could have chosen to not cancel people like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey. They would have been harshly criticized and possibly faced boycotts for it, which is probably why they didn't do it, but they could have done it, and I have no doubt that at least Weinstein (and quite possibly Spacey too) could have weathered the storm and continued his career. Another great example is Mel Gibson. Hollywood blacklisted him back in 2006, long before online outrage took the form it holds now, and was only welcomed back into the fold after several years of exile. Cancel culture is not something that happens to studios and other corporations, it's something they choose to actively do or not do.
Shane Gillis is a bizarre example to bring up as evidence of the ineffectiveness of cancel culture. I'd say he was pretty effectively canceled when he lost his role on SNL and with it his shot at mainstream success. Of course he wasn't going to delete his podcast out of shame and retire from comedy altogether as a result, and I think it's a little silly to imply that's a metric to measure whether or not someone has been canceled. And regarding Michael Richards, let's be real - his career in film and television more or less began and ended with Seinfeld. The incident with his racist tirade wasn't notable because it marked the end of his career, it was notable because it was the first time anyone had heard of him in the years since the end of that show. He's either got the worst agent in Hollywood, or, as I suspect is more likely, he's simply chosen to leave film and television behind and focus on small-time local comedy.
And speaking of comedy, I believe that we as a society have reached a point where mocking and belittling marginalized groups publicly is no longer considered acceptable, and that's not a bad thing. The idea of changing societal standards is also not a new one. A hundred years ago, comedy acts frequently involved blackface and open, overt racism. I'm sure if those comedians were still around today, they would call us oversensitive for not considering their acts to be acceptable, just like aging comedians today call modern audiences oversensitive for pushing back on their acts ridiculing people for being gay, trans, or having a foreign accent when they used to perform them with no backlash for so long before.
Yes, I'm sure that trans people would be horrified if entertainers stopped talking about them publicly.
Shane Gillis is a bizarre example to bring up as evidence of the ineffectiveness of cancel culture. I'd say he was pretty effectively canceled when he lost his role on SNL and with it his shot at mainstream success. Of course he wasn't going to delete his podcast out of shame and retire from comedy altogether as a result, and I think it's a little silly to imply that's a metric to measure whether or not someone has been canceled. And regarding Michael Richards, let's be real - his career in film and television more or less began and ended with Seinfeld. The incident with his racist tirade wasn't notable because it marked the end of his career, it was notable because it was the first time anyone had heard of him in the years since the end of that show. He's either got the worst agent in Hollywood, or, as I suspect is more likely, he's simply chosen to leave film and television behind and focus on small-time local comedy.
And speaking of comedy, I believe that we as a society have reached a point where mocking and belittling marginalized groups publicly is no longer considered acceptable, and that's not a bad thing. The idea of changing societal standards is also not a new one. A hundred years ago, comedy acts frequently involved blackface and open, overt racism. I'm sure if those comedians were still around today, they would call us oversensitive for not considering their acts to be acceptable, just like aging comedians today call modern audiences oversensitive for pushing back on their acts ridiculing people for being gay, trans, or having a foreign accent when they used to perform them with no backlash for so long before.
If the standard for what's considered harmful to trans people is this low then entertainers will most likely just never talk about them publicly. That sort of dehumanization seems to me like it would be harmful to that community.
Yes, I'm sure that trans people would be horrified if entertainers stopped talking about them publicly.
10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cancel culture
« Last post by crutonius on October 23, 2021, 09:17:34 PM »Well. That list is bonkers. They seek parity funding and representation to anything they deem transphobic. Since transphobia was the norm yp until about ten years ago that's a lot of Trans TV shows.
I still genuinely wonder if most of these people have even seen this special. If the standard for what's considered harmful to trans people is this low then entertainers will most likely just never talk about them publicly. That sort of dehumanization seems to me like it would be harmful to that community.
I still genuinely wonder if most of these people have even seen this special. If the standard for what's considered harmful to trans people is this low then entertainers will most likely just never talk about them publicly. That sort of dehumanization seems to me like it would be harmful to that community.