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

121–130 of 201 posts

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#121

Post by fatbird »

dklp111 wrote: post #106
fatbird wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not naming them because I'm not addressing any specific ideas, I'm saying something about the mechanism of amplification and why there's a moral case for cancelling some people. It works in all directions. It's the marketplace of ideas.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#122

Post by [deleted] »

adolph wrote: post #89
afutd wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I agree with the thrust of your edit, I’d actually be okay with making the swap if a black person from an underprivileged background told me that terms made him uncomfortable. But somehow it’s always a white woman from a privileged background that’s insisting we say allowlist or Latinx.

The white savior industrial complex is an important brand influencer segment. This is significant emotional labor they perform for “the is it Poles?” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_savior https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47245/the-cambridge-l...

[deleted]

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#123

Post by manfredo »

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 know a lot of people (mostly white, mostly men) don't think that's true, but these types of attitudes can easily allow harmful messages to fester in academic classrooms.

> 88 percent of students agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that “the climate on my campus prevents students/faculty from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive.” Sixty-three percent of faculty agreed or strongly agreed with the same statement.

No, it's not mostly white men, 88% is a figure large enough that it necessarily includes large swathes of other demographics.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#124

Post by ariabuckles »

jariel wrote: post #110
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…

"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 p…

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

This is in the context of his literature courses. There are so many literary authors that aren't white men, that arguing that he should have the right to decide to only teach works from white men (if he deems them to be the best works), does seem to me like arguing that we shouldn't teach the history of marginalized people.

If you only mean non-literary history, the history of black people and LGBTQ people are both very under-taught in United States schools. That's a real thing that some people do want to continue, and argue for. (But this seems a bit outside the topic at hand)

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#125

Post by schoen »

ZephyrBlu wrote: post #84
schoen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would most likely have downvoted your reply if I'd encountered it in any other context, but I upvoted it because you were replying to an invitation to defend the magazine's decision that purported to be curious about why someone would defend it. I really don't like the pattern of asking "I'm curious whether anyone would seriously advocate opinion X that's controversial in this community, and why" and then downvotin…

I think the comment has been downvoted because it does not seem to be in good faith and there is no substance to it.

Well, here's a better sibling comment with more substance and effort:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26394196

I tried writing a response three different times (specifically on the concepts of "safety" and "representation") and didn't manage to hit the right notes. ... Maybe next academic cancel-culture thread? :-(

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#126

Post by rayiner »

afutd wrote: post #50
BitwiseFool wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's even a movement to replace the term "Blacklist" with a less problematic words such as denylist or blocklist. Of course, "Whitelist" is just as problematic - if not moreso! - and should be replaced with allowlist or safelist. Edit: The etymology of these words have nothing to do with skincolor, Blackness or Whiteness.

Although I agree with the thrust of your edit, I’d actually be okay with making the swap if a black person from an underprivileged background told me that terms made him uncomfortable. But somehow it’s always a white woman from a privileged background that’s insisting we say allowlist or Latinx.

No joke. I had a very Caucasian woman tell me why she was too “exhausted” to explain to me why America’s treatment of Muslims was abhorrent and damaging. I, an immigrant from a Muslim country who went to college in the south after 9/11, had possessed the temerity to say America had handled 9/11 with far more grace towards its Muslim population than Muslim countries would have done had the shoe been on the other foot, and praised George W. Bush’s handling of the issue. That was the wrong answer apparently.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#127

Post by ttt0 »

monkeypizza wrote: post #113
marshmallow_12 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abolish is a synonym of cancel. Culture is the product of collective agreements. You Sir, are in fact suggesting we create a cancel, cancel culture. Instead of eradicating the evil, you are embracing it.

Yes, this is a coherent, stable proposal. For a tolerant society to adopt complete tolerance, even of things designed to destroy their society, is unstable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

It's fine, just don't call yourself "tolerant". It's doublespeak, just like how the word "racism" is used today

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#128

Post by ariabuckles »

manfredo wrote: post #123
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…

I know a lot of people (mostly white, mostly men) don't think that's true, but these types of attitudes can easily allow harmful messages to fester in academic classrooms. > 88 percent of students agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that “the climate on my campus prevents students/faculty from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive.” Sixty-three percent of faculty agreed or stron…

The question in that survey is different: it asks whether people self-censor because of others. That's pretty different than whether inclusivity is a worthwhile goal, and surveys are notoriously variable based on wording. For example, I would answer yes to that question, I censor myself to avoid offending people (I have done so in this thread, to try to keep it constructive), but I strongly support work to make colleges and workplaces more inclusive places.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#129

Post by schoen »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #115
rsj_hn wrote: post #14

"“we believe the essay does not align with Chicago Review’s editorial and political agenda.”" It's interesting that some academic literary magazines are now being forced to admit they have political agendas, which is a step in the right direction. People like Kunin are the conscience of our generation, daring to stand up to the mobs and tell the truth - a political act that conflicts with the Chicago Review's agenda.…

> some academic literary magazines are now being forced to admit they have political agendas I think "have political agendas" is a logical leap. If your employees or customers are going to be angry with you for working with someone, you don't work with that person. To go against the wishes of your employees and customers would be having a political agenda.

In this case, "political agenda" was claimed to be a direct quote from the magazine's staff, so it's a little less of an imputation than it might be in other contexts. :-)

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#130

Post by DoreenMichele »

afutd wrote: post #50
BitwiseFool wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's even a movement to replace the term "Blacklist" with a less problematic words such as denylist or blocklist. Of course, "Whitelist" is just as problematic - if not moreso! - and should be replaced with allowlist or safelist. Edit: The etymology of these words have nothing to do with skincolor, Blackness or Whiteness.

Although I agree with the thrust of your edit, I’d actually be okay with making the swap if a black person from an underprivileged background told me that terms made him uncomfortable. But somehow it’s always a white woman from a privileged background that’s insisting we say allowlist or Latinx.

But somehow it’s always a white woman from a privileged background

It's a pattern in part because of the way white women get socialized and the role they get assigned.

I'm not excusing it or saying it's okay. I'm just saying widespread patterns tend to be driven by larger forces.

I'm not going to say more than that because it tends to be a shit show to try to say anything about the whys and wherefores.

Yes, it needs to stop. Helping white women escape the role society assigns them would be a more effective means to address this than just pointing fingers and being blamey.

Post reply on HN