Cancel culture IRL

[smartcooky]

But it's easy to understand why modern naming schemes are increasingly differing from this older system. Naming the disease after location of first discovery is an imprecise system and perpetuates misunderstandings.

Which is precisely why it is not done now, especially in academic circles, which is what is being discussed here (and NOT d4m10n's goalpost move to 19 month old newspaper headlines).


ETA: And actually on that subject, this was published early in 2020 in the British Medical Association Journal


https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/9/e003746

"Time to stop the use of ‘Wuhan virus’, ‘China virus’ or ‘Chinese virus’ across the scientific community"

The principle of integrity states that researchers should strive for consistency of thought in addition to consistency of action.6 The use of phrases, such as the ‘Chinese virus’, referring to SARS-CoV-2 may equate to the use of ‘Italian death’ for the Black Death, ‘American Pandemic’ for the AIDS pandemic or the ‘African virus’ for the Ebola virus. There does not seem to be the same level of insistence to identify other viruses or diseases within specific racial, ethnic, national or geographic groups. These substitutions violate the principle of integrity, and the inconsistency warrants further investigations. The principle of carefulness requires researchers to be cautious and unwavering in their decisions about research practice. Unsubstantiated claims regarding the origins of a deadly and highly transmissible virus that adopt phrases, such as ‘Wuhan virus’, violate this principle of carefulness6 and fail to account for the human consequences of using these terms.​

 

[d4m10n]

But in the charged context in which this professor used it, Wuhan Flu and Chinese Communist Party Virus is so obviously politicized and likely bigoted that I can definitely see a lecturer being disciplined for unprofessionalism.

Seems to me that if someone complains about Chinese Communism as an ideology, that lowers the likelihood that they are complaining about the Han people as an ethnicity. I'm highly skeptical of the claim that this professor was doing a racism in that syllabus.

Which is precisely why it is not done now, especially in academic circles, which is what is being discussed here (and NOT d4m10n goalpost move to 19 month old newspaper headlines).

At what point did it become reasonable to infer racism from [place name]/[virus] nomenclature?

 

[angrysoba]

But it's easy to understand why modern naming schemes are increasingly differing from this older system. Naming the disease after location of first discovery is an imprecise system and perpetuates misunderstandings.

Sure, and I think that this is unlikely to continue after this pandemic for a number of reasons:

a) Trump's Wuhan Flu antics just make the whole idea unpalatable.

b) The variants clearly led to a lot of wrong conclusions about how particular ones came from particular places (when in fact this often wasn't even true).

 

[angrysoba]

Seems to me that if someone complains about Chinese Communism as an ideology, that lowers the likelihood that they are complaining about the Han people as an ethnicity. I'm highly skeptical of the claim that this professor was doing a racism in that syllabus.

At what point did it become reasonable to infer racism from [place name]/[virus] nomenclature?

I'm agnostic about whether or not it was racist. I am not agnostic on whether or not it was unprofessional. It clearly was.

 

[smartcooky]

Seems to me that if someone complains about Chinese Communism as an ideology, that lowers the likelihood that they are complaining about the Han people as an ethnicity. I'm highly skeptical of the claim that this professor was doing a racism in that syllabus.

At what point did it become reasonable to infer racism from [place name]/[virus] nomenclature?

Right about the time Trump started using it as a racist slur against the Chinese

Also, read the rest of the post (I think you quoted it before I finished editing) to see some academics think about its use

 

[angrysoba]

This is another example of the "cancel culture" warriors complaining about a standard of free speech that has never existed.

Outside of self-published crank rags, editorial decisions have always remained an important element of must serious thought, either academically or journalistically. Making assessments about what does or does not get published is a huge part of these systems. Editors at newspapers have more influence on viewpoint at a given publication than those writing the articles. Likewise the academic system that elevates or diminishes specific academics has more impact than individual scholars.

Cancel culture warriors will try to frame their complaints as one criticizing the very existence of these editorial standards which have always existed, but what they are really complaining about is that their preferred world-view is no longer receiving preferential treatment that is once did. They mourn the loss of a system where their preferred bigotries have been treated as acceptable, while the controversial opinions of their ideological enemies have routinely been shut out.

These people are losing in the clash of ideas and being relegated to increasing irrelevancy. Instead of re-evaluating their positions, they are attacking the legitimacy of the system itself and proposing that the very act of judgement or editorial/academic standards is improper.

Indeed, we have seen a number of temper tamtrums recently by certain "academics" who in most cases actually had plenty of freedom to promote their nonsense, and even invite provocateurs onto campus, and as soon as a few protesters showed up to mess with the speakers or to heckle, the very same safe-space-hating professors catterwall about how their university isn't protecting their meetings and how people are writing mildly rude bits of graffiti in the toilets (as though this is an unprecedented assault on liberty etc...)

There is no better example of this than Beri Weiss, who once bragged about her role in running out anti-zionist academic voices at her university, but now makes a steady living crying that cancel culture won't let her brand of conservative opinion run unopposed.

Indeed, and she also seems to be acting as a grifter an editor herself of her own little substack for disaffected self-cancelling professors, and presumably makes money of her writers.

Hmmm... I wonder... if I submitted an article to her substack would she be obliged to publish it? If she doesn't, how is she different from You Tube, Facebook and CNN who have editorial policies and terms and conditions?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Sure, and I think that this is unlikely to continue after this pandemic for a number of reasons:

a) Trump's Wuhan Flu antics just make the whole idea unpalatable.

b) The variants clearly led to a lot of wrong conclusions about how particular ones came from particular places (when in fact this often wasn't even true).

Even before covid naming diseases seemed to follow a different approach. Recalling SARS, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, whatever. There are obviously much more important distinguishers of these diseases, often symptoms or infection vectors, to differentiate them. The Covid-19 name caught on pretty quick because it's an excellent descriptor of a novel coronavirus that emerged in 2019.

With flu, they are increasingly being named according to the HxNx scheme. We know so much more about these diseases than the medical scientists of ages gone by who just named a disease after wherever sick people started showing up.

It's hard to find a reason why location of discovery is an important enough detail to merit naming priority.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Saying that I graduated from Robert E Lee High School is different from saying current graduates of the renamed school graduated from Robert E Lee High School. Same building, many of the same teachers, but one statement is accurate while the other is intentionally provocative.

 

[ahhell]

Seems to me that if someone complains about Chinese Communism as an ideology, that lowers the likelihood that they are complaining about the Han people as an ethnicity. I'm highly skeptical of the claim that this professor was doing a racism in that syllabus.

At what point did it become reasonable to infer racism from [place name]/[virus] nomenclature?

Right about the time Trump started using it as a racist slur against the Chinese

Also, read the rest of the post (I think you quoted it before I finished editing) to see some academics think about its use

More accurately about the time the Chinese government started a propaganda campaign to call it so. Along with a general obstructionist policy regarding research into the Wuhan virus.

Trump saying something doesn't make it a racist slur.

I'm agnostic about whether or not it was racist. I am not agnostic on whether or not it was unprofessional. It clearly was.

This much is true.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

More accurately about the time the Chinese government started a propaganda campaign to call it so. Along with a general obstructionist policy regarding research into the Wuhan virus.

Trump saying something doesn't make it a racist slur.

This much is true.

Our bat-**** insane prof might have more legs to stand on if this was a syllabus for a poli-sci class or something even tangentially related to China, the virus, or whatever and not a chemistry course. I can't recall any time the "Chinese Communist Party" was a topic of any syllabus when I acquired my BS in Chemistry.

Bringing in irrelevant, inflammatory pet issues into the classroom is obviously unprofessional.

 

[mumblethrax]

I mean, I have a pretty good idea who I'm dealing with when someone refers to COVID-19 as the "Wuhan flu" or "the Chinese Communist Party virus". I don't think he should have been suspended, but it's not some great mystery.

 

[d4m10n]

I mean, I have a pretty good idea who I'm dealing with when someone refers to COVID-19 as the "Wuhan flu" or "the Chinese Communist Party virus". I don't think he should have been suspended, but it's not some great mystery.

I'd assume he's anti-Communist, but that's well within the bounds of tolerable ideological diversity at most any American university.

 

[mumblethrax]

I'd assume he's anti-Communist, but that's well within the bounds of tolerable ideological diversity at most any American university.

I'd assume considerably more than that.

 

[d4m10n]

I'd assume considerably more than that.

I'm agnostic about whether or not it was racist. I am not agnostic on whether or not it was unprofessional. It clearly was.

Agreed.

 

[dirtywick]

Seems to me that you're okay with people being canceled when they say stuff you find offensive and otherwise not.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

This is a pretty good summary of the entire thread

 

[mumblethrax]

At the very least, someone who calls it "the Chinese Communist Party virus" has serious problems with relevancy.

"Wuhan flu" is not a neutral descriptor. It's used by someone very intentionally invoking the xenophobic stigma that the WHO (among others) were careful to avoid.

 

[Dr. Keith]

At the very least, someone who calls it "the Chinese Communist Party virus" has serious problems with relevancy.

"Wuhan flu" is not a neutral descriptor. It's used by someone very intentionally invoking the xenophobic stigma that the WHO (among others) were careful to avoid.

That’s important to the freedom of expression necessary for the proper teaching of chemistry.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

At the very least, someone who calls it "the Chinese Communist Party virus" has serious problems with relevancy.

"Wuhan flu" is not a neutral descriptor. It's used by someone very intentionally invoking the xenophobic stigma that the WHO (among others) were careful to avoid.

It's anti-influenza propaganda!

 

[d4m10n]

"Wuhan flu" is not a neutral descriptor. It's used by someone very intentionally invoking the xenophobic stigma that the WHO (among others) were careful to avoid.

Not so careful that they'd avoid referencing and hosting papers which used "Wuhan coronavirus" in the title, e.g. https://www.who.int/docs/default-so...-assay-v1991527e5122341d99287a1b17c111902.pdf

I find the idea that including perceived origin in viral nomenclature went from ordinary academic usage to a fireable offense in less than two years, well, downright silly. Such dramatic overcorrection smacks of moral panic.

 

[d4m10n]

That’s important to the freedom of expression necessary for the proper teaching of chemistry.

Exactly.