[klyrs]

> 1984’s Appendix lays out the principles of Newspeak, the nascent language of Orwell’s dark dystopia. Newspeak was designed to make unorthodox thoughts impossible. There would be no words to express them.

> The Times (January 18) reported that “a transgender woman has denied raping two women with her penis”. If “with her penis” is not quite 2+2= 5, it’s getting close. 2+2= 4.5?

It's so curious that Dawkins, of all people, seems to be complaining that unorthodox thought -- that is to say, a rejection of traditional religious doctrine -- is expressible in the English language.

[ryandv]

> It's so curious that Dawkins, of all people, seems to be complaining that unorthodox thought -- that is to say, a rejection of traditional religious doctrine -- is expressible in the English language.

That's not what he's "complaining" about at all. In fact, quite the opposite - that certain political and/or religious groups are _making it impossible_ to express unorthodox opinions that run counter to their dogma and catechisms, and that this is being accomplished through the control of language.

[klyrs]

What religion do you refer to? Is it a major one? When you say catechism do you literally mean doctrine in the form of question-and-response dialogue that is memorized by adherents? Traditionally, "orthodoxy" refers to doctrine that is either religious tradition or generally accepted. But the acceptance of transgender people is still hotly contested worldwide, and a small minority of humans live in jurisdictions where it's even legal -- do words have meaning, or are you yourself "torturing the language" to reach conclusions that are unsupported by the facts presented?

[ryandv]

It can be argued, and has been upthread in the top-voted comment at time of writing, that "the dynamics of the current 'cancel culture' or whatever resemble those of the traditional religious institutions Dawkins has previously critiqued."

You can choose to accept or refuse this proposition as you will; taking it as granted, it seems proper to invoke "orthodoxy" in its literal sense of "doctrine that is generally accepted," and catechism in its original sense derived 'from Greek katēkhismos, from katēkhizein "teach orally, instruct by word of mouth"'. [0]

What is generally accepted is dependent on time, location, and culture. Consider that this submission was immediately flagged within less than an hour of its posting, implying that this article is not generally accepted within the bounds of whatever time, location, and culture we are inhabiting when we post here.

[0] https://www.etymonline.com/word/catechism

[klyrs]

What is cancel culture and how does Budweiser fit into that picture? For what it's worth, I do not accept that cancel culture is a religion. As far as I can tell, it's a label that regressives have applied to a set of behaviours exhibited by both progressives and regressives, but is only used to refer to those behaviours when exhibited by progressives.

> Consider that this submission was immediately flagged within less than an hour of its posting, implying that this article is not generally accepted within the bounds of whatever time, location, and culture we are inhabiting when we post here.

Do the science: post a pro-transgender thinkpiece, and see how quickly it gets flagged (or more likely, how few upvotes it gets). The topic is divisive -- and despite guidelines to the contrary, we as a community aren't great at maintaining a posture of curiosity, so it gets flagged every time it comes up.

[ghink]

In the case he cites, The Times was obliged to use that wording because of guidance from the press regulator.

Which many people, like Dawkins, complained about, but, on the other hand, complying with this guidance works out well in the long run because it highlights the absurdity of ideas like: a man is a woman if he says he's a woman.