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

311–320 of 482 posts

Re: Blog Anonymously

#311

Post by detaro »

gruez wrote: post #136
detaro wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So no advocating for policies, laws or actions anymore?

There's a difference between advocating for political change, and ruining someone's life.

There are connections between the two though, annoyingly often. Advocating for a policy change that will ruin some people's lives. Advocating for a status quo that will ruin some people's lives. Advocating for some group of people to be fired. It doesn't make sense to see speech just as a consequence-less thing, in both directions.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#312

Post by joshuamorton »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #305
joshuamorton wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which ideals? The ideal that speech should be free from criticism is self-contradictory. Criticism itself is speech, and so the claim that speech should be free from criticism is itself a condemnation of forms of speech. All we can settle for is that no speech is unlawful. Because of that, I don't claim to support any particular "ideal of free speech". None of them are resolvable without contradiction. > and I'm cert…

> Which ideals? The ideal that speech should be free from criticism is self-contradictory. The ideal that we don't try to suppress speech we disagree with, but rather we encourage it to debate it. > Criticism itself is speech, and so the claim that speech should be free from criticism is itself a condemnation of forms of speech. You're confusing an idea with its expression. There's no inconsistency between free speec…

> Rather, I was saying criticizing the idea of restricting speech is not inconsistent with free speech ideals

Restricting in what way though? Formal restrictions: laws, assuredly this is inconsistent. But if the "restriction" not a formal restriction, but instead a reaction to criticism, then this is a meta-criticism of criticism, and that is counter to those ideals, because criticism itself is speech.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#313

Post by joshuamorton »

65536 wrote: post #304
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.

And how about the psychological effects on these people of being bullied by a large group of people online? I don’t know what I’d do if it happened to me, but I know it would leave me in an even worse state mentally than I am in, because I know how it feels like to feel that other people don’t want you around.

I agree that online bullying of individuals is bad.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#314

Post by DenisM »

joshuamorton wrote: post #299
throwaway894345 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hav…

Was Damore a bigger guy?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#315

Post by joshuamorton »

ThA0x2 wrote: post #301
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.

FWIR: Justine Sacco still suffers from severe PTSD and has to attend regular counselling. Adria Richards fell off the face of the planet, was chronically unemployed for a while, then finally ended up at a no name company, probably making peanuts compared to where she was. James Damore was also similarly unemployed for a while, was in several lawsuits with Google, and claims to be working at a start-up, but he may als…

Adria Richards is actually an interesting case. She was "cancelled" for cancelling someone else. One of the major criticisms of the Harper's letter is that people speaking out about injustice have historically faced severe retribution, and that the recent concern about cancellation is only in response to this retributory cannon being pointed toward those "in power".

I can't see the people who are today concerned about Cancellation standing up for Adria Richards were that to happen again today. See the recent argument between Yann LeCun and Timnit Gebru for a somewhat analogous situation.

The backlash against the person perceived as trying to cancel someone else was much greater than the initial "lash", so to speak.

> James Damore was also similarly unemployed for a while

Not a very long time though. And the lawsuits were ones he chose to file.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#316

Post by sophacles »

shpongled wrote: post #86
nisuni wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why Cancel culture. People lose jobs for things said 30 years ago, and that were completely acceptable 30 years ago. > Niel Golightly stepped down after an employee complained about an article he wrote in 1987 that said women should not serve in combat. He said those views do not reflect his opinion today. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/business/boeing-resignati... You want to be insured against that.

Absolute insanity right here.

It is pure ridiculousness indeed. Imagine holding people accountable for their actions... that would be personal responsibility and is 100% unacceptable to the current powers that be.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#317

Post by CathedralBorrow »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #285
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I inform a corporation that I will not do business with them while a person is in their employment, am I oppressing that person or am I using my freedom of speech?

So a boycott?

Sure, is my choice to boycott a company also an act of oppression?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#318

Post by CathedralBorrow »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #261
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I inform a corporation that I will not do business with them while a person is in their employment, am I oppressing that person or am I using my freedom of speech?

If I say "it would be unfortunate if something happened to your job", am I issuing a veiled threat or am I using my freedom of speech? It's possible that I'm not making a threat, but we know it's unlikely. Technically it amounts to intent (do you intend to ruin someone's livelihood or are you just making a bizarre statement for indecipherable reasons?).

I agree with everything you said. Can you comment on my question though?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#319

Post by CathedralBorrow »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #270
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I inform a corporation that I will not do business with them while a person is in their employment, am I oppressing that person or am I using my freedom of speech?

You're extorting a company, let's even call it quid pro quo.

[flagged]

Re: Blog Anonymously

#320

Post by joshuamorton »

DenisM wrote: post #314
joshuamorton wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hav…

Was Damore a bigger guy?

Compared to the generic "woman at Google", I'd argue yes. But even if you disagree in that one case, that doesn't invalidate what I said. It allows upward facing action.
Post reply on HN