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

On Being Blacklisted

aaronkunin.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 201 posts

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#101

Post by refenestrator »

fatbird wrote: post #94
refenestrator wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, let's take that at face value. Are the unspecified others who would burn them down justified? At the end of the day, is there any positive moral case for this?

The others aren't burning them down, the others are making clear that they have conditions on participating, and if they're met, they're happy to do so. Triaging your project to get it done by excluding the one person who makes five others leave, by forcing the one guy out, is basic management. It's the basic stuff of editorial decisions. As for the larger case of "blacklisting", as Kunin describes it, the moral case…

How many degrees of separation can you get in here and still feel justified?

Kunin opposed the idea of blacklisting in general, he didn't even endorse any person.

So now, for those who refuse to be published in the same magazine as him, the chain goes "unspecified other" -> Kunin didn't disavow -> they can't publish anything where Kunin might also publish? There's not even a specific idea they're condemning besides general open-mindedness.

What about if the magazine had allowed him to publish, and you had been in there as well? Would you deserve censure as the third link? After all, you shared a stage with someone, and god only knows how many stages they've shared with how many people.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#102

Post by waterhouse »

ariabuckles wrote: post #86
hirundo wrote: post #12

Is there anyone that wants to defend this blacklisting of the author by the Chicago Review for writing this article [0]? That is, not to reconfirm that they do indeed have the right to do so, but to argue that they are right to do so? Maybe some of us can avoid this fate if we understand the grounds for it, since they decline to make it explicit. What did he say that was not just wrong, but so wrong that he should no…

It's a pretty standard anti-inclusivity rant (although it starts by attempting to position itself as more than such), and then ends with an anecdote/strawman (which is contrary to every notion of inclusivity advocacy that I've seen) to propose that those advocating for inclusivity are the real people who want segregation. I think what a lot of the commenters are missing is that this article, and statements like "If I…

> I think what a lot of the commenters are missing is that this article, and statements like "If I must revise my teaching to conform to a popular view of inclusivity that I do not share" have an impact on not just his research, but also sends a message to his students: that he doesn't whether they feel safe being there matters, and that they don't deserve to have representation in studied works.

You're making a jump there: from whether Kunin's class covers works from authors with certain demographics, to whether his students feel safe. The character sequence "saf" doesn't appear in either of Kunin's articles. I think if it had been conveyed to him that his students' feeling of safety depends on his choice of curriculum, then he would have mentioned this argument (he'd probably call it absurd but I expect he'd mention it). His impression was: "That way, students from underrepresented minority communities will see themselves reflected in the readings. The students will feel included, and empowered to succeed, when they read works by writers who look like them."

Do you think it's really true that a significant number of students were feeling unsafe as a result of curriculum choices, and if so, why hadn't Kunin heard of it?

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#103

Post by cpr »

rayiner wrote: post #96

Kunin writes: “Look. I’m a weirdo. I have worshipped strange gods. I have strange opinions about various subjects, and I have published some of these opinions in books, essays, and poems. My sexual preferences are unusual, and I have written about them extensively. There are lots of statements in my published writing for people to take issue with. However, I must admit with some embarrassment that the views expressed…

You think First Things represents the far right? Maybe in some fevered hard left dreams...

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#104

Post by ariabuckles »

baggy_trough wrote: post #99
ariabuckles wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pretty standard anti-inclusivity rant (although it starts by attempting to position itself as more than such), and then ends with an anecdote/strawman (which is contrary to every notion of inclusivity advocacy that I've seen) to propose that those advocating for inclusivity are the real people who want segregation. I think what a lot of the commenters are missing is that this article, and statements like "If I…

Any organization that concludes the ideas in that article are hateful or harmful can really no longer be considered an academic one.

Does the Chicago Review position itself as an academic organization? I'm under the impression it's a literary publication, which seems pretty different than a research publication in my lay eyes.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#105

Post by slibhb »

richardwhiuk wrote: post #58
threevox wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your poetry is political, you're doing it wrong

Lots of the best (by a number of standards) poetry ever written is deeply political.

Lots of art is political. But what makes art good has nothing to do with its politics.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#106

Post by dklp111 »

fatbird wrote: post #94
refenestrator wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, let's take that at face value. Are the unspecified others who would burn them down justified? At the end of the day, is there any positive moral case for this?

The others aren't burning them down, the others are making clear that they have conditions on participating, and if they're met, they're happy to do so. Triaging your project to get it done by excluding the one person who makes five others leave, by forcing the one guy out, is basic management. It's the basic stuff of editorial decisions. As for the larger case of "blacklisting", as Kunin describes it, the moral case…

"Villain", "odious ideas"? Name them explicitly instead of the usual general ranting employed by demagogues like McCarthy in the past and the left inquisitors these days.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#107

Post by pochamago »

wvenable wrote: post #92
pochamago wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't that make us more sympathetic to the issue? In all the fights over those issues it was a constant among the left that free discussion is vital. Was that really just an attractive political stance, held only until it was no longer useful? I don't want to believe that, I have to believe that people were sincere and we can return to it as a universal principle.

It's basic tolerance of intolerance. We want to be tolerant in all things -- be sympathetic -- but the more you are tolerance of intolerance the less tolerance there is in the world. It's a delicate balance and not one that is so black and white.

To be honest, I've always felt like this was an unproved assertion. Popper made it sound very good, but what attempts to show that it's actually true have been made?

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#108

Post by josephg »

wvenable wrote: post #92
pochamago wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't that make us more sympathetic to the issue? In all the fights over those issues it was a constant among the left that free discussion is vital. Was that really just an attractive political stance, held only until it was no longer useful? I don't want to believe that, I have to believe that people were sincere and we can return to it as a universal principle.

It's basic tolerance of intolerance. We want to be tolerant in all things -- be sympathetic -- but the more you are tolerance of intolerance the less tolerance there is in the world. It's a delicate balance and not one that is so black and white.

Sure; sometimes its complicated. But it seems pretty simple here. The article in question[1] makes a liberal appeal to care about good art, and care less about the artist. It isn't overtly racist or sexist. It isn't a work of intolerance that we need to steel ourselves to be intolerant over in turn. Its a pretty middle of the road, classically liberal opinion piece that 15 years ago would have been entirely uncontroversial and boring.

Deplatforming someone over this isn't "bravely standing up to intolerance". Deplatforming the author is just simple anti-intellectual intolerance of the diversity of ideas that (used to) make the academy so great.

[1] https://arcdigital.media/self-censorship-in-the-academy-5241...

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#109

Post by john_moscow »

richardwhiuk wrote: post #55
dkdk8283 wrote: post #45

Let’s please collectively agree to abolish cancel culture. Opposing ideas cause growth. Singular ideologies do not lead to growth or change.

Not really. You are basically arguing that anyone who provides a platform for viewpoints, must provide a platform for any viewpoint, no matter how abhorent they (and their readers) might find it.

Well, it gets interesting if you actually look into it. Somewhat simplifying it, but there are 4 types of actors:

1. Content creators. People that share viewpoints. They are motivated by influencing others who read their pieces.

2. Content consumers. People that read what is published by creators. You can split these in 2 groups:

2a. Non-activist consumers. They don't have much free time and generally just skip over something they don't like. They are the majority.

2b. Activist consumers. They have lots of free time and want their share of influence. By influencing what content creators can write they feel an influence over what non-activist consumers can consume.

3. Providers. They provide platforms connecting content creators and consumers. They generally just care about making money and rely on partnerships with other providers (banks, payment processors, hosting companies, domain registries, etc). They would gladly cut off business that brings negative PR to them.

So what is happening recently is a very small vocal minority of activist consumers is getting increased control over what content creators (1) can share to regular consumers (2a). They do it by forcing big providers (banks, cloud providers, etc) to cut ties with smaller providers that are not aligned with the activist consumers' viewpoints. Hence, many other providers are forced to self-censor in fear of losing access to banking and other vital services.

It's a rather weird negative selection process powered by the social media. Instead of encouraging the unhappy unproductive people to learn from their more successful peers and knock off what worked for them, we are giving them increasing control over the media space, so they can make their views (that lead to unhappiness) more mainstream, resulting in more unhappiness and more social tension.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#110

Post by jariel »

ariabuckles wrote: post #86
hirundo wrote: post #12

Is there anyone that wants to defend this blacklisting of the author by the Chicago Review for writing this article [0]? That is, not to reconfirm that they do indeed have the right to do so, but to argue that they are right to do so? Maybe some of us can avoid this fate if we understand the grounds for it, since they decline to make it explicit. What did he say that was not just wrong, but so wrong that he should no…

It's a pretty standard anti-inclusivity rant (although it starts by attempting to position itself as more than such), and then ends with an anecdote/strawman (which is contrary to every notion of inclusivity advocacy that I've seen) to propose that those advocating for inclusivity are the real people who want segregation. I think what a lot of the commenters are missing is that this article, and statements like "If I…

"but also sends a message to his students: that he doesn't whether they feel safe being there matters, "

That is some very serious gaslighting.

To suggest that somehow students would be 'unsafe' around writers such as him or his works, is a toxic form of rhetoric.

That term - 'unsafe' - used in in an intellectual context such as it is is anti-intellectual and oppressive.

There is no 'harm' in his words.

Even if the publication felt it wasn't exactly perfect - they could have published it anyhow at very least on the basis of erring in the side of expression.

Then people cold read it, make up their own minds, disagree, not care, whatever. We're adults, we can do that, that's the point.

And FYI nobody is arguing that any real, material history should not be taught.

Post reply on HN