I'm wary of social hypotheses that place an irrefutable / indefensible burden on "me" (well, actually, on anybody), especially if the only reason is by association because of correlations with arbitrary traits.
I can very well admit that some cultures (in a very broad sense of the term) have agressive characteristics perceived by people used to others and, to the extend the advantages are greater than potential drawbacks (which are often not even present or can be short term, granted), try to be careful about that in hopefully a benevolent way. Also, people classified as privileged might also perceive tons of things as aggressive against them, and mere injunctions to stop or act as if not in all regard, are not productive -- it does not really matter who is "wrong" or "right" if an action is de-facto antagonizing and polarizing over and over (well, from an individual ethic pov it does matter very much, but from an outcome that's debatable...), unless you are ready to escalate, and that seems a terrible idea.
So I don't believe people with characteristic X or Y shall be approached all the time as if they are a mean representative of their "group" and shall as a result apply a parody of Bayesianism blind to all other traits, and blind to individual variance, and blind to the knowledge of themselves.
I don't see why, from time to time, there would not be people who are "true" about things they won't even say, but that does not seem a very powerful thing to act upon. I just don't know what to do with that, and especially I'm not sure I understand where to go from that to the conclusion.
Some intelligent people think X and other intelligent people not X?
Yes, that happens. Very often. Extremely often.
But is there even an absolute truth when "cancel culture" is concerned, and what even is the precise definition? The wording is typically used to talk about things believed excessive. For example it's one thing being associated with Epstein and people not wanting to work with you anymore; it's another thing to be fired because you told a silly joke to a friend during a conference, and a third party ears it.
Absolute truth in social subjects is rarely to be seen, especially when we talk about blurry concepts.
I can very well admit that some cultures (in a very broad sense of the term) have agressive characteristics perceived by people used to others and, to the extend the advantages are greater than potential drawbacks (which are often not even present or can be short term, granted), try to be careful about that in hopefully a benevolent way. Also, people classified as privileged might also perceive tons of things as aggressive against them, and mere injunctions to stop or act as if not in all regard, are not productive -- it does not really matter who is "wrong" or "right" if an action is de-facto antagonizing and polarizing over and over (well, from an individual ethic pov it does matter very much, but from an outcome that's debatable...), unless you are ready to escalate, and that seems a terrible idea.
So I don't believe people with characteristic X or Y shall be approached all the time as if they are a mean representative of their "group" and shall as a result apply a parody of Bayesianism blind to all other traits, and blind to individual variance, and blind to the knowledge of themselves.
I don't see why, from time to time, there would not be people who are "true" about things they won't even say, but that does not seem a very powerful thing to act upon. I just don't know what to do with that, and especially I'm not sure I understand where to go from that to the conclusion.
Some intelligent people think X and other intelligent people not X?
Yes, that happens. Very often. Extremely often.
But is there even an absolute truth when "cancel culture" is concerned, and what even is the precise definition? The wording is typically used to talk about things believed excessive. For example it's one thing being associated with Epstein and people not wanting to work with you anymore; it's another thing to be fired because you told a silly joke to a friend during a conference, and a third party ears it.
Absolute truth in social subjects is rarely to be seen, especially when we talk about blurry concepts.
(edit: typos)