No. I’m saying that because Cancel Culture wasn’t a thing in the 90s, nobody ever decided that Attacking JK Rowling was Actually Supporting Conservative Ideals, even though when Harry Potter first got popular there were any number of conservative criticisms of it. One of the things Cancel Culture says is “My Team is right, the Other Team is wrong, and if you do something the Other Team thinks is right, then you’re wrong too.”

You realized that Harry Potter existed for only two years of the 90s, right? And that was two books she had written were entirely children's books, in basically a vacuum? So...there basically is no 90s political discussion about Rowling, barring the idiots ranting about witchcraft. The first two books don't contain anything objectionable, they don't really contain much at all.

As someone who has been in that fandom for a while, and also on the left, maybe you could just take my word that Rowling has never been on a pedestal, there's _always_ been issues with her and her stuff, with just enough vagueness that it could _perhaps_ be shrugged off until this point, when it couldn't anymore.

This was the last straw, but the straws had been building since...I don't know, exactly when, it was already there when I shows up, which was like...2003. I know a lot of people criticized the analogy of werewolves with people with AIDS, and was in the third book, so came out in the US Sept 1999. So I can _maybe_ technically find a criticism of that in the 90s?

You're just making a bunch of assumptions how the left thought about Rowling over the you have any evidence at all of this? Have you even looked it up?

Because I've been here 17 years. I mean, it's died down in a lot of ways, but...I still know what's going on.

And because of this it was possible for there to be a liberal criticism of Rowling, just as you describe (although you need to pick more-relevant examples, because the ones you’ve got are all from the 2010s and I’m talking about the 1990s.) Nobody was expected to spend a lot of time explaining how their criticism wasn’t just Enabling Conservative Wingnuts, or Actually A Defense Of Misogyny, or Really Just Religious Zealotry.

Um, again, as someone in the fandom, yes, there were people who said 'The books aren't perfect, but they teach acceptance and whatnot, she even made a gay character, and they're just children's book, so let's not criticize them. On the whole they're good.'.

This idea that no one used to say 'Let's not attack the people that is mostly good and mostly on our side', and that's some new thing just invented with 'cancel culture', is absurd.

The difference between the right and the left, of course, is that the left will _stop doing that_ and kick people out when they cross some line, whereas the right just continues to follow and defend people who have become completely indefensible. (Addition: Well, I guess Milo is proof they won't follow them _anywhere_. But...they will follow them way farther than the left.)

So you haven’t talked about conservatives at all in the entire conversation except for the part where you did?

I didn't say I didn't talk about 'conservatives'. I said I didn't talk about how conservatives felt about Rowling. It's right there in the part you quoted. You have the oddest reading comprehension.

Seriously, people, I don't even know the fuck's going on anymore. DD claims something 'I said' was revisionism, I pointed out I hadn't even vaguely said anything on that topic at all, and he quotes me paraphrasing _him_ saying the _opposite_ thing, not as my opinion, but just a summary of his position. Something I actually agreed with, so didn't address.

He just apparently decided I was objecting to something because I said he said it!

I didn’t say there weren’t, you idiot, I said that there were, because people making them don’t have to explain why They’re Not On The Bad Guys’ Team.

I'm having troubling parsing what you said. I think what you just argued is that liberals...threw away Rowling as she got more and more problematic, because they didn't want to keep defending her. Right? Telling me if I'm wrong, I'm actually am not 100% sure.

But if it are completely correct.

I mean...what is your point there? That people we think are good, like for example, if they have written a book series, which got young people reading enmass, which was direct analogy for fighting Nazis (Or perhaps more neo-Nazis) and had said one of the most respected character was gay, we might think well of them, despite a few cracks in the persona.

And then later, as we reevaluate her, and find that some of her trouble spots were actually pretty bad looking, especially when put with things we've learned later. That we can look at what seemed to be mere vague hints at antisemitism in the book now stand out more with her conceptions of other countries and native populations in her world-building. That some of the criticisms about women in the book that seemed small now show up more as she has been revealed to be a gender essentialist. That her sole retroactively gay character isn't even going to be gay in the movies series about him and the person he supposedly loved, aka, it was completely unserious to just get 'progressive points'.

...yeah, she looks worse and worse.

And because the left actually has _moral standards_ instead of just waving damn team banners, they have renounced her. Although, again, this was a long process that just now _finished_, not the much shorter 'throw her out right now' you seem to be implying. This was the last straw. I literally haven't even mentioned some of the controversies about her.

You realize that saying 'This person we used to like did some bad things and now we don't like them' is _way_ more moral than 'This person we used to like did some bad things and despite that person being clearly horrible, we are now going to defend that person to the death because they're on 'our team' and that is all that matters.'

You realize the former is better than the latter, right?

PS claiming that JK Rowling’s work wasn’t criticized by religious conservatives in the 1990s is revisionist.

Good thing I didn't claim that in manner whatsoever, then. I literally I didn't mention _conservatives_ in that post at all.

In fact, I haven't haven't talked about how conservatives feel about Rowling _at any point_ in this entire discussion outside of of trying to describe your statement in my followup response: 'And he knew that some religious people on the conservative side had an issue with the books'

You will notice I use the the word 'knew' there. When people say someone someone 'knows' a fact, and don't follow up on that, you should generally assume they _also_ believe that fact...if they didn't, they would have said a word beside 'knew', or just said it wasn't true.

So thank you for proving my point in the most literal way possible, in that you read my post about how liberals didn't like something, and somehow walked away with conclusion that I had said conservatives liked that thing.

Because, again, in your universe, politics is pure teams, and one side liking something is defined by the other side disliking it, and vis versa.

I wasn't talking about criminal activity. That's why I say ' the personal moral sense and the government policy sense', not 'criminal sense'. And I didn't say there wasn't 'sides'. I said conservative have _only_ sides, where as the left has other requirements.

Everyone has a tendency to believe bad things about people on the other side, and not on their own. It's why people still defend Bill Clinton, despite him being, at _minimum_, a serial sexual harasser, and possibly worse. They _don't believe_ it.

But I'm not talking about alleged crimes. Of which Trump has plenty, but I can understand simply not believing them. I'm not criticizing that. (Well, not here.)

What I am criticizing is them ignoring stuff we know is true.

We have audio of Trump saying things that conservatives should not be okay with. This isn't some debatable thing, no one is arguing the audio is fake, and it doesn't seem to be 'Oh, he didn't really mean that.' They seem to accept he meant that. It's okay?

Unlike, say, Biden, who has had some interesting slips of tongue, but hasn't, say, talked about going into dressing rooms to see half-dress women.

But maybe the moral stuff is an aside. The important stuff in a politician is the political stuff, and we can perhaps forgive moral lapses if the political stuff is on target.

Except...Trump's wasn't on target. I don't want to, yet again, try to figure out what conservativism is, but let's say three legged stool of social, fiscal, and defense conservatives. Aka, the religious right, the anti-taxers/anti-social services, and war hawks.

He broke every single one of those leg. Even ignoring the moral failing of himself, he was completely unable to even _pretend_ to be religious. He talked about massive social spending and expanding government healthcare, (neither of which he did because that's not really up to the president), and withdrawing from free trade agreements, and he actually did that one a bit. He was anti-Iraq-War and talked about withdrawing from military treaties and allegiances. Going isolationist.

Like, philosophically, there was almost nothing Trump campaigned on that is an actual Republican position. He tore down everything, and he tore it down from 'the left'. I mean, his were really bad and stupid positions, but I won't try to claim they're far-right, they're more to the center, just...stupid. The Wall was pretty much the only far-right campaign promise I remember, although I get a nagging sensation I'm forgetting one.

And yet he won the nomination, because he was able to...I'm not really sure how to say without sounding stupid. He was able to convince Republican voters that he was more in touch with them, on their side more, than the out-of-touch coast elites. (I know that sounds really stupid when said like that, but I don't know what to tell you. It was really stupid.)

Being on 'their side', trumped (pun not intended) everything. That was the most important part, that they felt Trump was on their side, so they voted him.

Because him being on 'their side' was literally more important than _any_ political issue.


There's all sorts of things you can say about Hillary Clinton. And Joe Biden. 'Does not represent their party's political positions' is not one of those things! Like, they follow the 'rules' of Democrats perfectly well, they didn't campaign on, for the Trumpish-equivalent, repealing social security, outlawing abortion, and selling off the Grand Canyon.

As I stated in the quote you provided, my first recommendation was to keep the mutual freedom of both parties to end voluntary employment at will...

You haven't mentioned ending at-will employment, I am the only person who has mentioned that on this entire page before your post.

But why are you arguing with me. Go end that! I'm not stopping you! It's the other side that's arguing for that!

AND get both sides to agree that using employment as a weapon against dissenting views is a lose/lose proposition.

What you really want to do is make it unacceptable to fire people _only after internet outrage at them_, which doesn't even slightly help the victim any other form of discrimination...and you want that because that specific form of discrimination is the only form you could see yourself a victim of.

But again...that just means corporations will do that _sneakily_. They will refuse to renew contracts, they will claim it's in violation of a morals clause or promotes a violation of the law, they'll find some other reason to fire him.

Which...anyone who has paid attention to labor law would realize, because corporations have been discriminating that way for years.

You can't stop discrimination by corporations. They are inherently biased, because they're made of people. The only thing you can do is make individual corporations less powerful, so that the discrimination hopefully somewhat evens out, and victims aren't hurt as much by it.

This issue isn’t about free speech so much as it is about a secular religious war which the progressives are flaming.

This entire thing is sorta like how large governments don't like guerrilla wars. So they claim that _specific_ form of warfare shouldn't be legal, and the only thing that should be legal is, like, 'normal war', where giant armies fight each other on the battle, and they're sure that they have the advantage, because they have the bigger army.

No. We're not doing that. We're not outlawing the specific form of warfare that the left has managed to start using and keeping all forms that the right is good at.

You want the war to stop, take way those specific weapons. Dismantle a system where corporations can ruin people's lives, not only by firing them in extremely rare situations that you seem to be worried about, but by systematically discriminating against them for decades. By throwing their weight around politically. By getting absurd ruling about how they are people and don't have to provide health care. There's _all sorts_ of bad things corporations do that they shouldn't be doing.

Until you decide to take away corporate power, we will continue to use it against you. If you want to stop it, your only options is to figure out some way to keep those giant, wealthy, powerful sociopathic organizations under control. Or at least weaken them.

So I join cancel culture. Not because it's good, it's bad. I actually don't like it, and I think at some point we have to talk about twitter-rage, or whatever. Because I don't like this mob mentality, they have horrible judgement.

But making societal problems also happen to white, upper-middle-class men is literally the only way to make anyone take the problems seriously. (As I've said before on this site.) So I'm favor of people doing that.

Conservatives should be relieved that this is where I draw the line, and I'm not trying to get white, upper-middle-class men often shot by the police with no solve _that_ problem.

They can, but in general employers fire people for economic reasons that are beyond the control of either the employees or the employers.

No...well, maybe if you count only 'firing'.

What is being left out of this conversation is that employers still, very clearly, in a systematic way, discriminate against PoC and women and openly gay people and trans people, etc, etc.

They just do it at the hiring end.

Which is why all these worries ring very hollow. What will eventually happen, and in fact what does already started happening, is that companies will merely start checking people's beliefs before they are hired. Maybe walk them past a Pride flag, or BLM banner, watch their face. Have the interview by a trans person. Etc.

I.e, the problem people think is going on here, isn't. The actual problem is that corporations are structurally unable to behave in unbiased ways, as they have demonstrated for decades in their treatment of certain groups.

_Now_, at this point in time, those groups they mistreat could hypothetically add...certain people with certain conservative beliefs. (I could argue this is not exactly the same thing, in that those beliefs actually can hinder the ability of the company to function, in that an employee being anti-gay causes more problems for a company than a gay person, but...let's just pretend they don't. Let's pretend it's the exact same thing.)

And just like it's easier to defend not hiring any gay people than firing them when you learn it, it's easier to defend not hiring conservatives than firing them. So that will start happening. Businesses will start demanding access to social media so they can check for this (They already do), they will demand references that allow them to check, etc.

They might just decide to hire less straight white Christian guys on the grounds it's those guys who most often turn out to be problematic. They could 'prejudge' them, instead of trying to figure this out.

Which is, let me be clear, is employment discrimination, and literally illegal. Anti-discrimination laws bar employment decisions based on 'types of attributes' not 'which specific attribute'. It's as illegal to not hire a man as it is a woman, or a Christian as a non-Christian, or (now under Federal law) a straight person as a gay person.

If only conservatives hadn't worked to completely gut enforcement of those for several decades, making it nearly impossible to prove that. Oops.

In true Alinsky fashion, cancel culture is seeking to capture this freedom to choose who to employ and using social pressure to run it through a lens of progressive ideology.

So, let's spell this out explicitly: There was a freedom, that non-progressives were using, to choose who to employ.

Progressivres then showed up and started somehow illegitimately using this freedom.

This is a problem because they're using this freedom against the wrong people. Instead of, for example, using this 'freedom' to fire gay people, they're using it against people who 'believe women and men may have different statistical interests and aptitudes.'

So _now_ it's time to react. Not for the decades they were allowed to fire gay people, but the fact that society has swung far enough that companies are finding it profitable to do the opposite.

I...don't even actually have to say anything else here. This is almost conservativism in a nutshell: Rights for me but not for thee.

My recommendation is cancel cancel culture on either side. I guess you could suggest an alternative which is that it is illegal to base hiring upon any secular philosophy or belief. This wouldn’t be my first recommendation, but it is better than the alternative of cancel cultures.

And how are you going to prove that is why someone was fired in an 'at will' employment state?

Some of...laws requiring cause to fire people? Laws about...labor, or something? Or a...sort of group that represents the employees and doesn't allow the SJW-controlled companies to do this?

This is why I'm really enjoying this conversation. Cancel culture has resulted in conservatives twisting their brains into knots trying to figure out how to stop companies from doing what they want to employees.

Companies now want to fire these people for 'who they are and/or what they believe'. And conservatives have spend _decades_ arguing this is entirely appropriate and reasonable and in the few circumstances they've accepted it isn't (like race), they still refuse to have any sort of actual control of that or consequences for doing so. they're having to slap together some philosophical scaffolding to explain why it's bad when it's used _against them_.

Or...mysteriously, somehow, decide this was always bad. They just...never said anything.

Maybe you and Dave can just admit that you feel it’s your turn to be the bullies.

It's not 'our turn', that would imply that the right has _stopped_.

The terminology is we are now _also_ the bullies.

We are no longer going to stand here and passively take the bullying of the right.

We will, however, still be slightly more restrained. The right still feels like they should be able to hurt people for who they are.

We aren't doing that, we're still limiting ourselves to bullying people who cause harm, usually by bullying other people.

Again, you know how to stop this: Reduce power of corporations.

So here’s the thing — does he really believe this, and if so — why would he beleive something so incredibly stupid?

He believes it. Because that's how conservativism's all about sides.

And he knew that some religious people on the conservative side had an issue with the books, and hence she had to be a darling of the left.

They see politics as a football match, where you just pick a random side to root for, and everyone is on a side, and if you aren't on one you're on the other.

This is because the right is full of people who fundamentally think politics _don't matter_. Oh, they claim they think it does, but they're in an extremely privileged position and truly think nothing can affect them.

The left, of course, treats politics as a _real thing_, and thus can say things like 'Getting young people to read is a good thing, and HP did that, so that's good.' and 'Rowling seems slightly progressive and the message of the book can be understood to be tolerance, so that's good'. And yet actually still go 'That are also a lot of issues with the books and how they deal with race, how there seems to be coded antisemitism in there, the treatment of woman is...iffy, etc, etc'.

Until eventually the problems have piled up so high everyone switches to 'Look, there's a lot of better YA _now_, with better authors, and we don't really need her anymore.' A lot of the left had reached that point a decade ago. The rest of it...just reached it with the TERF bullshit.

Honestly, you can see this pattern everywhere. Where the left judges people in some sort of supposedly objective sense (I'm not saying they're _good_ at that, just that's what they are trying to do.), and meanwhile the right just...takes sides.

I mean, the entire thing is very obvious when you realize how often the left 'attacks their own'....because the left doesn't believe in 'their own'. There's just a bunch of people doing good things or bad things. Meanwhile the right is just 'What side are you on?', and that determines's like how Trump managed to walk into the GOP nomination despite promoting a ton of stuff that conservatives supposedly thought were bad things, both in the personal moral sense and the government policy sense...because he positioned himself as 'one of them' (Even more than other GOP pols!), and that is fundamentally the only thing they care about.

It’s piling on an already screwed up situation where people are far too dependent on corporate beneficence.

That would be a lot more believable as a complaint if the right had _literally_ any idea how to stop that dependency, or, hell, admitted that dependency was a problem outside of this one specific instance.

As it is, people don't get to complain that others are using the tools _they_ have happily use to oppress others for decades are now, sometimes, being to oppress them.

I mean, Republicans are, whining, _right now_, that the Court finally decided that LGBT people are now protected under various sexual discrimination laws, including employment. They openly wish for the right to cancel gay and trans people. (The real 'cancel' of losing a job, not the pretend cancel of 'people saying mean things'.)

But they don't think that's 'canceling' people because....they're Officially Correct(TM) about those sort of people not deserving jobs, whereas the left is Officially Wrong(TM) about spreaders of hate not deserving jobs.

You only like it because right now the winds are blowing towards empowering identity obsessed weirdos who can only communicate in 10,000 tongue-clicks of meaningless social justice word salad.

I 'like it' in the sense that I pick up an enemy weapon and use it in response. Does that mean I want that weapon to exist? No. Because I don't want that weapon to exist, and I forbidden from using it and just have to take being shot at by others using that weapon? Also no.

I actually made a mention of a meme in my last post, and cut it out, but maybe I should have left it in, so here it is: This is textbook: You criticize society, yet you live in society. Curious.

I criticize the power of corporations to harm people with basically no oversight, and yet I use the power of corporations to harm people with basically no oversight. Curious.

Perhaps a way to stop me would be to do something about all those dangerous corporations laying around that anyone can pick up and fire wildly at others, if the corporation slightly thinks it would be profitable to do so?

You don’t care about anyone and are more than happy to sacrifice innocents, allies, and powerless people for no reason.

The 'powerless' person under discussion here is literally a billionaire. And also literally can't be fired, because almost all her money is from the copyright she holds.

How it is a _concentration_ of corporate power? The power already exists to fire people, or not hire them, for almost any reason, and has been used for for bad reason forever.

Liberals are just _asking corporations to use that power_ in a specific way. Like, what's the alternative here? That corporations _don't_ have the power to do that?

Alright. I'm all for that society. Is there any chance of that happening at any point in the forseable future?

No? There's no chance of corporations losing that power?

Well, then, I don't think requests to aim that power in actually useful ways (as opposed to the general ass-covering and often just random prejudice they normally do) is a bad idea.

The actual objection here isn't 'corporations can cancel people'. Corporations have literally canceled people forever...hell, half of what the left is complaining about is the fact that for decades corporations 'pre-canceled' black people via systematic discrimination.

The objection here is that, with the left population now outnumbering the right (Mostly because the right _refused to change position_ for a quarter of a century at this point so the population just ended up on the left side by accident.), that canceling is now pandering to the left instead of to the right.

But, hey, the right should feel free to undercut corporate power with strong labor laws protecting people, strong unions to do to the same, along with a good safety net and non-employee health care and whatnot for the people who do fall through the cracks. *snicker*

If and when enough of society accepts Trans, she will be forced to change her mind, shut-up, or lose sales/friends/etc. That hasn’t come yet.

She's been increasingly criticized for this, for years, until she openly went all the way, and certain segment of people have had enough. And that is where we are at. We shall see if it has an effect on her sales, but honestly that doesn't really matter to her, she's already a billionaire. So I don't really follow the point you're making here? She's not ever going to 'forced' to change, unless decides she dislikes everyone hating her.

You’ve responded by claiming the larger narrative it represents is, in your opinion, correct. So, the literal truth of “hands up” doesn’t matter.

No, I'm arguing that there are so many instances that no individual examples matters. That a systematic thing can't be disproved by disproving the details of an individual instance.

That's how how systematic oppression is always argued against. People try to pick apart each individual example, and assert there is no bigger picture.

What is happening with black people and their police interactions is a bigger picture, one that can easily be seen with statistics. And limiting it to _deaths_ is really silly. Like, there's a huge amount of police violence against black people that doesn't result in death, and even more discrimination that isn't violence, including a lot that have literally been decided in courts of law. Because, in a systematic problem, there should be very large amount of examples, from top to bottom. And there is.

If she knows she’s wrong (and she might not), she’s doing the same thing you just did just with a very different larger narrative.

She's...clearly not doing the same thing I am, because I'm not trying to argue he said 'Hands up don't shoot' (My biggest complaint about that shooting is a) the cops harassing black people for walking down the street, and b) leaving his uncovered body in the street for so long, which I believe we've talked about?), whereas she _is_ trying to argue lies, knowingly or not.

If she was doing the same thing I was doing, _she_ would be be talking about how what she claims is happening is systematic, and thus technicalities of a instance under discussion are kinda pointless to dispute.

Except...there aren't any examples. There's not even an example under discussion, we're not talking because it happened recently. There's no Mick Brown or George Floyd. And all the 'examples' sound really stupid. At a larger level, this isn't happening. At no level is this happening.

That number is so low, statistically, that you can't do statistics about it, you're sorta reduced to things like 'In 2014, a man dressed as a Barbie doll followed a woman into a restroom in a San Diego and attacked her', and...that sorta relates, right? If we...ignore the fact he wasn't trans and his outfit really had nothing to do with anything and the attack happened because there was no one nearby, not because he was 'allowed' in the restroom.

What has happened here is that conservatives...and, yes, the people we're talking about are in bed with conservatives even if they pretend to be feminists, have hijacked the language of discussing oppression of women, and are using it against people who...not only do not harm women, but are women. By basically making up things, and it's things that are very easy to check. Like I said, this isn't some...debate about level or severity, this is a 'not happening' level.

Or to put it another way: If I was arguing the same way she was, I would be be arguing that cops were arresting black men to sexually molest them. A thing that is not true, despite it probably having happened a few time! But it is not any sort of real thing that commonly happens, and it would be absurd to base any sort of policies on that idea specifically.

Heh, yeah, I don't want to imply the CIA was great either.

Let's just say, during the Red Scare, the CIA was doing useful work while the FBI was crazy.

The CIA later ground to a halt because of _different_ witchhunt by the director of the CIA, in the 60s.

Our intelligence history is 'Competent people randomly halted by lunatic witch hunts'.

And that wasn't political reasons, unlike McCarthyism...he just...went utterly paranoid.'s possible that paranoia was deliberately engineered by the the KBG sending overcompeting defectors...or a fake one intended to compete with a real one. It's vaguely interesting.

There's a fun conspiracy theory is that Angleton eventually decided that the top-level spy he was looking for was JFK, and had him killed.

The cultural shift I’m talking about is “are we going to accept trans people”?

She wasn't criticized for 'not accepting' trans people. She was criticized for lying about them. Specifically, lying about 'Do men pose as trans women and attack women in women-only spaces.'

That_is_ an actual objective fact. It's a statistical thing, yes, but it's still a fact, does it generally happen or not? And then answer, it doesn't, it doesn't generally happen, it doesn't seem to happen at all. It's hard to find any examples of it whatsoever!

Women have a much much larger chance of being attacked in women-only spaces by men breaking down the doors and leaping in, or walking to and from that space. This is a 'winning the lottery while getting struck by lightning' situation to worry about.

Meanwhile, keeping trans women _out_ of those spaces, and more importantly putting them into men-only spaces which is often the alternative, gets attacked at high rates than anyone. So this a real concern.

The first bit, 'Who should be in women-only spaces?', is an opinion. And Rowling could technically hold it with no justification beside 'I don't don't believe they are really women'. But she was also spreading the bogus facts to justify that opinion, because that opinion is pretty hard to hold if you believe the _actual_ facts about reality.

Opinions don't appear out of nowhere. They are created from information.

And the actual problem happening in this society is spread of misinformation used to justify _really bad_ opinions.

And yes, there are personal “truths” that are other people’s “deliberate lies”. It’s sort of like how “hands up don’t shoot” was a thing from BLM for quite a while even after it was clear Mike Brown was shot attacking that cop.

See, there's _you_ arguing that misinformation can be lead to incorrect opinions...although honestly that's such a small part of a much larger pattern it affects very little WRT opinion. Like, that entire instance could be revealed to be alien mind control and not the fault of anyone, and...that doesn't really change anything about the rate of black people being shot indiscriminately by police and the police not slightly being punished for it. still think it's important enough to mention. To discuss, to debate. And it _is_.

This is because opinions are generally based in some sort of information, and it worth arguing when the information is wrong, even if people have the right to whatever 'opinion' they want...because most people like to think their opinions are based in reality.


We're talking about transphobes that are repeating transphobic talking points, over and over, that no basis in reality.

So...yes, there are people in there. The problem is that they are passing along propaganda.

At least that's what I'm talking about. I'm beginning to get the idea I've paid a little bit more attention to this recently than a lot people here, and I probably need to start my posts with less assumption of knowledge. I'm...sorta out of practice talking here, I think.

Although the Lavendar Scare _did_ seem exceptionally bad at failing to discover the homosexuals in the higher-up positions. For example, somehow the FBI failed to discover that the J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI, had been in a relationship with Associate FBI Director Clyde Tolson for decades, and McCarthy failed to notice his own assistant, Roy Cohn, who was helping him with the hunt for homosexuals, was actually homosexual himself.

Weird. It's almost as literally no one believed any of 'hunting down homosexuals' bullshit and that entire thing was merely an excuse for political power by attacking a minority that was somewhat disliked by blowing them up into a huge threat regardless of reality, so that they have someone to demagogue again...

...and at _that_ point the entire 'hunting down communist' should click in your head, because it was the exact same thing. It didn't matter there were some Soviet assets (Which are not the same thing as 'communists') that actually were a threat, because the point of of what they were doing was never any actual threat.

We've know 'There were a bunch of Soviet spies' for years, and the right keeps writing articles about to supposedly justify the witchhunt, one, ever, seems to be able to point a specific person, and say 'Hey, look, this member of the Hollywood 10 was actually a Soviet asset' or 'This random guy in the State department was'. This is..because they generally weren't.

See, there was a _sane_ response to Soviet spying in the 1950-60, and it happened mostly out of sight, based on actual intelligence...usually in the newly founded CIA.

Meanwhile, there were assholes running promoting the hell out of 'anti-communism' as part of their political correct. McCarthy, and Hoover, and Hoey, etc. They ran around like idiots pointing fingers at 'communists' and made very it difficult to track down _actual_ Soviet assets, who indeed did a lot of damage, and stole a lot of information!

'[V]irtually none of the people that McCarthy claimed or alleged were Soviet agents turn up in Venona. He did identify a few small fry who we now know were spies but only a few. And there is little evidence that those he fingered were among the unidentified spies of Venona. Many of his claims were wildly inaccurate; his charges filled with errors of fact, misjudgments of organizations and innuendoes disguised as evidence. He failed to recognize or understand the differences among genuine liberals, fellow-traveling liberals, Communist dupes, Communists and spies — distinctions that were important to make. The new information from Russian and American archives does not vindicate McCarthy. He remains a demagogue, whose wild charges actually made the fight against Communist subversion more difficult. Like Gresham’s Law, McCarthy’s allegations marginalized the accurate claims. Because his facts were so often wrong, real spies were able to hide behind the cover of being one of his victims and even persuade well-meaning but naïve people that the who le anti-communist cause was based on inaccuracies and hysteria.'


And a fun followup question for you: Were any of the homosexuals in league with the Soviets? Or was that just like a random fascist addon? Because that was actually just as big as, and much better at finding _actual_ people who fit the description, as the communist part of that. Like, that actually was real, there were indeed a bunch of homosexuals in the government at the time, and that entire mess found a lot of them.

Yes. Exactly. People are acting like McCarthy was a twitter mob.

Everyone, that wasn't a bunch of people demanding something be done, and the political leadership getting on board.

That entire thing was someone _in power_...Hoover actually, not McCarthy, Hoover started it (Which is something people should probably be aware of when talking about the police), and fanned the flames and other politicians leaped on it.

None of that was what we would call 'grassroots'. It wasn't a bunch of people writing was a deliberate attempt, by politicians (Yes, Hoover counts as one.) to get more power by attacking people with lies.

These lies, incidentally, changed how people felt about both gay people and communists, for a long time, so much so that they still echo today.

This really teaches us is exactly the opposite lesson that people seem to take from this, in that leaders are, in fact, actually _leaders_. Our political leaders teach us what is 'correct', and then we believe it. Which means, when they want to do stuff we don't want to, they _misinform_ us.

And there is some level of criticism to level at population for going along with that, but all too often we let people rewrite history where the _duped masses_ are the villains of the story because they eventually pull out pitchforks and touches because they're told that there's a monster in the [political enemy's] castle. We paint them as the enemies, instead of the people in power who lied to everyone, repeatedly, for years.

When the leader lies to everyone, for years, when they built a society that does that, you get...witch hunts. You get Nazis. You get North Korea. You get...whatever the hell they build.

People are kinda dumb, and easy fall under the sway of propaganda. I know that seems harsh to say, but we have a lot, and I mean a lot of examples in history.

And it's _really easy_ to say 'Oh, not me. I wouldn't.' And hell, maybe you specifically, the reader of this post, wouldn't. That doesn't change the fact that the society around you is like that, and we need to operate as if that is true. And stop blaming the victims of propaganda, and actually sit down and say 'Wait. We need to do something about this constant propaganda.'.

What I am talking about is propaganda. Much more subtle, but still propaganda

Postmodernism philosophy is clearly a _response_ to this. You can't blame a philosophy from the 70s, or later, for stuff that happened in 40s.

And yet we still have gay marriage when that was so impossible Obama had to run on opposing it.

These sorts of cultural shifts take decades to thrash out.

No one is talking about political shifts. I am talking about actual facts. Although homosexuality isn't actually a bad analogy. I've actually mentioned this before, but I've written some stuff set in the 50s, during the Lavender Scare. Let me give a fun history lesson that almost certainly got left out of everyone's textbooks: (No links, I already am falling into moderation for no reason I can tell, but all this stuff is trivially googleable.)

There's a report that came out in 1950, generally called the 'Hoey Report'. It claimed things like all of the government's intelligence agencies 'are in complete agreement that sex perverts in Government constitute security risks.' and talked about they were 'moral degenerates' and whatnot.

This report was basically entirely a lie (And only parts that weren't 'lies' were the parts that were pure opinions about morality.), and everyone involved knew it. The Hoey Report was bad science. And it was bad medical information, which was also pointed by psychiatrists _before the very committee_. It misrepresented testimony given to the committee, it made up facts out of thin air, it was complete and and utter bigotted gibberish and they knew it AT THE TIME.

It took only seven years to _finish_ a report by another agency, one who _actually_ cared about 'Is this something that is actually a threat to the country'. The US Navy came out, in 1957, with something called the 'Crittenden Report', which pointed out faults in it:

'"Many common misconceptions pertaining to homosexuality have become exaggerated and perpetuated over the years. As additional facts have been gathered in recent years, the fallacies inherent in these concepts are being demonstrated with increasing frequency.' and 'No intelligence agency, as far as can be learned, adduced any factual data before that committee with which to support these opinions'

This isn't something that we look back at from 2020 and say 'Man they were wrong back then.' Everyone with any knowledge pointed it out back then.

The Hoey Report continued to be used to set US policy for the next 40 years. Meanwhile, the Crittenden Report remained secret until 1976 until most of it was grabbed via a FOIA.

And...just in case people aren't clear...I know everyone thinks 'things always get better', but...they don't. Before the 1950s, homosexuality certainly was not accepted, but it sure as hell wasn't anywhere near as illegal. Things got a lot worse for gay people in the 50s, specifically because Hoover, a goddamn fascist asshole, decided he wanted more power as director of the FBI, and needed enemies. And failing to find communists, he started looking for homosexuals, which he did find. Other politicians got in on it, and the government started spewing misinformation.

This isn't some hypothetical thing, this is real history. I'm not making this up or exaggerating this, or even interpreting it beyond guessing at some motives. But lies, that anyone with any knowledge knew werea lie, resulted in a 'cultural shift' where 'homosexuality' became almost indistinguishable from 'communism', and both of them were painted as serious threats. (When in reality, neither of those groups were. The homosexuals obviously weren't, and they weren't finding the actual communists infiltrators, who were not stupid enough to subscribe to The Worker or join the Communist Party of America.)

The thing about 'cultural shifts' is not that they take a long time. It's that they happen due differing understanding. And that understanding is due to the information people have.

Thus, there's a large large large group of people dedicated to making sure people have misinformation, both old misinformation and any new misinformation they can come up with, so those cultural shifts don't happen. And they repeat this wrong information over and over again, because the point isn't to have actual information, it's to keep a level of misinformation in the background so that people's opinions don't change.

So...I'm not talking about isn't some 'cultural shifts'' or 'moral belief'. I'm talking about deliberate misinformation, for decades, to prop up those beliefs.

No, what I’m saying is that having shit-starters on the board is not good for the board

You do remember that we are talking about a specific specific situation, right? And the _only_ information we have is: The list will not allow a trans woman on there because _having_ the trans woman would stifle the speech of transphobes.

Not...fight the speech. No, the situation we have been told of is that existence of the trans woman, in that space, would stifle the freedom of someone to be transphobic.

There is no 'shit-stirring' going on.

And, perhaps, again, what we should be worried about is the person dumping the shit in, not the person who might _hypothetically_ stir it.

So between Divorce and War, you pick War? Good to know.

Um, no, I pick divorce, but a list of journalists should perhaps pick a divorce of the _bigotted shit-dumpers_. Instead of...the people who could _hypothetically_ point that out.

One of the important parts of being an adult human being is to be able to Take Issue with someone and not turn into a screaming shit-throwing monkey.

You realize how fucking bigoted and stupid that is, right? You are assuming a trans person cannot occupy the same space as transphobes, because a trans person will automatically turn into a 'screaming shit-throwing monkey'.

You have hallucinated a different situation than the one _we have exactly the same information about_. It's in that post up there. There is no evidence, and cannot possible be any evidence (Because we don't know the details) that what you think is true is actually true.

We have been told literally nothing about personality of this trans woman. At all. We have no history of her behavior, we have nothing except she is presumably a journalist, and presumably want to be on this list...or at least asked to be at one point.

You are the person pretending she is anything, at all. Has any specific behavior.

And that's probably because you think being trans _is_ political.

Instead of having a discussion about anything, it would be screaming about You Fucking Transphobes.

Either you're implying that the discussion list is full of transphobia at all times, or you're implying that trans people will just random scream about the existence of other people that they think are transphobes, but haven't said anything transphobic.

The first is actually very bad if it is happening.

The second is sorta a stupid idea to think about trans people.

Eventually, everyone would leave the forum because it had turned into Screaming About The Fucking Transphobes, and this person would say “welp, guess that’s what you get when you allow yourself to be a home for Fucking Transphobes.”'s the thing: That is what happens when you allow yourself to be home to any sort of bigots.

Because eventually, someone who actually takes issue with the bigots will show up. Or they were there all the time and just...stopped holding their tongue. The person that veronica mentioned just _happened_ to be a trans woman, so the list admin is _assuming_ she wouldn't silently let transphobia go past, and maybe they're right in that. But the thing is...neither will a lot of other people.

So eventually, someone will stand up to the transphobe's shitty ideas, and the list will devolve.

And it won't just happen once. It will happened again and again. And as it repeated, other people will get sucked into this.

The hardest thing about moderation is recognizing when someone who’s a good person, correct in all the right ways, definitely morally superior, is nonetheless a bad choice to have in the discussion.

Or...and bear with me a second...perhaps an even harder thing would be to decide not to have the bad people in the conversation?

Like...maybe a list for journalists should have rules about being bigoted, and say 'We don't do that here.'

In fact...they probably already _have_ that rule. They are just not enforcing it, because there's a certain type of transphobes that are particularly good at couching their speech in feminism.

Which is...sorta the entire problem, honestly. Bigots have gotten _really good_ at saying things that sound reasonable, but have been disproven, and shot down, and they _have_ been outdebate, outscienced, outeverything.

And yet...they still get a fucking platform. Over and over again. Everything has to be repeatedly debated. And it's never winnable. It's never settled. Except it has been settled, but reality is not real anymore, because literally nothing _sticks_, and bigots create their own reality, where they just keep saying gibberish, over and over, and people keep handing them fucking microphones.

For a very long time, JK Rowling was a liberal hero, because she Pissed Off All Those Bible-Thumping Conservatards.

Uh...not really?

'Reasonable well respected as a YA author who helped revitalize the genre' is not the same as 'liberal hero'.

Also...Rowling has actually been called out by the left forever. What's going on now is just the last straw.

The most recent thing before that was her rather crappy ideas about magic in other cultures. Oh, and refusing to make one supposedly canon gay character _in_ Harry Potter actually gay on screen. Oh, and let's not mention making the the Jewish-coded main character join the side of the basically Nazi character.

And that's _just_ the Fantastic Beasts stuff. Two movies so far.

There's plenty of criticism of the original series, too, that I don't really want to get into.

Oh, and her treatment of the trans character in one of her mystery books had been criticized ever since it came out.