Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blog Anonymously

uglyduck.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 482 posts

Re: Blog Anonymously

#291

Post by joshuamorton »

plzbo wrote: post #286
joshuamorton wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of those, the last three didn't suffer any long term consequences (all three were employed relatively soon after they were fired), and the first happened too recently to really analyze.

Good that they didn't suffer any long term consequences, but that does not diminish the point made.

Yes and no. One of the concerns about cancel culture is that it results in people's lives being ruined/ended. This (usually) is not the case, even among the most egregious examples that people can come up with.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#292

Post by throwaway894345 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #277
dnissley wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regular folks who were "cancelled": - David Shor - Justine Sacco - James Damore - Adria Richards A full list would be a mile long

Of those, the last three didn't suffer any long term consequences (all three were employed relatively soon after they were fired), and the first happened too recently to really analyze.

I never understand these kinds of arguments. Is the idea that "because there are still enough good and decent people resisting the mob in order to prevent long term consequences for their targets that we should not condemn this mobbing at all"? What point are you making?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#293

Post by dang »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #40

>We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. We really, really aren't. >If speech has consequences that are administered outside the law, then it's not really free. Just take a moment and thing about what you just wrote. It's absolutely nonsense. I can't go in to a job interview and call the panel a bunch of cunts and then expect to be hired. That's a consequence o…

Alright you guys when the conversation goes to "It's absolutely nonsense" followed by "which rock have you been under", you're forfeiting the right to have this argument on Hacker News. Please read the site guidelines until you see that this is exactly what they ask you not to do here, regardless of how wrong the other person is, how right you are, or how right you feel you are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Maybe you don't owe the person you're arguing with better, but you owe this community much better if you're posting to it. The idea here is to have a place on the internet that doesn't destroy itself with flames and screams... or at least to stave that fate off a while longer. That's getting harder lately, and we need you to help haul in the right direction and not push it off a cliff.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Re: Blog Anonymously

#294

Post by joshuamorton »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #281
joshuamorton wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You shouldn't be fired for things you do and say outside of work, period. Why not? And are you claiming that this is simply a moral standpoint, or do you want to legally prevent employers from firing employees for off-work behavior?

There's plenty of companies that don't fire employees for the things they do outside of work, it's been like this for ages, why should this become a normal standard all of a sudden? Just to appease the ever changing feelings of others? Unless I actually breach my company contract in some fashion I don't understand why what I do outside of work has anything to do with my company, in fact, unless I'm some executive, it…

That's not what I asked. You stated companies shouldn't do this. Just because some entities have chosen to act in a certain way doesn't mean that it is morally correct for all entities to act in that way.

Certain companies have been founded based on religious beliefs forever, that doesn't mean that it is morally correct for every company to have religious foundations. If you want to run your company that way, you're absolutely welcome to, but upon what reasoning do you claim it is wrong for me to act differently than you choose to?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#295

Post by dang »

waheoo wrote: post #181
M2Ys4U wrote: post #40

>We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. We really, really aren't. >If speech has consequences that are administered outside the law, then it's not really free. Just take a moment and thing about what you just wrote. It's absolutely nonsense. I can't go in to a job interview and call the panel a bunch of cunts and then expect to be hired. That's a consequence o…

> We really, really aren't. Which rock have you been under? In the last year I've seen 3 collegues fired and 2 have to issue public apologies on twitter. For publically supporting trump. Which then got turned into "I dont feel safe working with this person." This is all pushed by the stasi level initiatives that comes out of our D&I team. Its hell to work under but I dont feel like chucking my career over it.

Alright you guys when the conversation goes to "It's absolutely nonsense" followed by "which rock have you been under", you're forfeiting the right to have this argument on Hacker News. Please read the site guidelines until you see that this is exactly what they ask you not to do here, regardless of how wrong the other person is, how right you are, or how right you feel you are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Maybe you don't owe the person you're arguing with better, but you owe this community much better if you're posting to it. The idea here is to have a place on the internet that doesn't destroy itself with flames and screams... or at least to stave that fate off a while longer. That's getting harder lately, and we need you to help haul in the right direction and not push it off a cliff.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Re: Blog Anonymously

#296

Post by dang »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #40

>We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. We really, really aren't. >If speech has consequences that are administered outside the law, then it's not really free. Just take a moment and thing about what you just wrote. It's absolutely nonsense. I can't go in to a job interview and call the panel a bunch of cunts and then expect to be hired. That's a consequence o…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23789963.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#297

Post by throwaway894345 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #291
plzbo wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good that they didn't suffer any long term consequences, but that does not diminish the point made.

Yes and no. One of the concerns about cancel culture is that it results in people's lives being ruined/ended. This (usually) is not the case, even among the most egregious examples that people can come up with.

Because social protections haven't eroded enough to get to the point where lives are actually ruined. Why wait to speak out against cancel culture until it's actually ruining lives?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#298

Post by bokbok8379 »

dijit wrote: post #4

This goes into the how, but to me the more interesting question is the 'why'. Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? I only have one example of why; I'm a genuinely curious and open person and I like having my beliefs tested, some of my beliefs are nuanced enough that I sometimes break down my current beliefs and my reasons into blog posts. Things that I thin…

So they brought you into the interview just to have an argument with you over your blog post? Did you get the job? xD

Re: Blog Anonymously

#299

Post by joshuamorton »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #297
joshuamorton wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. One of the concerns about cancel culture is that it results in people's lives being ruined/ended. This (usually) is not the case, even among the most egregious examples that people can come up with.

Because social protections haven't eroded enough to get to the point where lives are actually ruined. Why wait to speak out against cancel culture until it's actually ruining lives?

If your entire concern is based in a slippery slope, it's more difficult to take it seriously, especially when the concern conceals a disregard for actual harm happening now.

"Cancellation" is a democratization of power. It allows the little guy to push back effectively against the bigger guy. Saying "look there's the possibility that it might eventually have bad consequences" rings hollow when it's also actively having good consequences right now.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#300

Post by ativzzz »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #269
ativzzz wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like Trump saying he could shoot someone and not lose voters in 2016? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTACH1eVIaA

We've all heard this, but did he actually go out and shoot someone and do it? He was talking out of his *ss about how confident he was about his supporters. English isn't even my first language and I could tell that's what he meant.

Did the girl who threatened to stab "all lives matter" people actually go out and do it? No, but she got fired anyway.

Free speech does not mean that your words have no consequences.

Post reply on HN