Live data from Hacker News

Cancel We The Web? (2020)

wetheweb.org

261–270 of 280 posts

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#261
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't agree with the symmetry you're drawing here. Pointing to a group of people and saying "I think they're engaged in a moral panic" doesn't make me part of an equal and opposite panic. If I were going around saying we've gotta ostracize the cancellers before they cancel us, that would certainly deserve some serious introspection - but I'm not, and neither is the original commenter.

While you might not be calling for ostracizing the cancellers, plenty of people out there are calling for exactly that. There's a number of terms being used ('SJW', 'woke', 'cancel culture', 'cultural Marxism', etc.) to denigrate and quell any kind of discourse that goes against conservative talking points. I'd suggest you go and watch any of the self-described 'conservative comedians' to understand the level of othe…

This has somewhat opened my eyes.

Looking in at the US from abroad, most people I know locally have been highly upset by US 'cancel culture'. Why? The lack of courts, the fact that people's lives, careers, and works have been ruined with "mob like" mentality, is horrifying.

Couple that with what you've just said, that the 'cancel culture' is a 'left' thing in the US, and this becomes more and more clear. As a Canuck, US / Canadian politics often do not align, and we have no political divide on these lines, so I did not even realise that 'cancel culture' was a 'left' thing until now.

It can often be difficult to decipher things from afar.

We also do things differently. Note, I'm not saying "better", just "differently". I honestly have no idea if this sort of behaviour is literally required, for change in the US, but it isn't well tolerated here by any one I know. Note that, fortunately, we have many political parties. And as a result, this ends up with people not aligning themselves with "just this or that party", as a general rule.

Sure, people will pick a party during an election, but even then people generally think 'this mostly matches with me, but that other party kinda does too, but I'll vote for $x...'. Further, we don't even elect our Prime Minister directly.. which also helps.

My point in all this rambling, is just to give a bit of insight into 'things are different', and how it seems to dull the sharp edges on 'us versus them'. And also because I know this next bit is somewhat sensitive, however?

Most people here, see little difference between US 'cancel culture', and 'what your prior US president did'.

Both? Decided to appeal to mob mentality. Both, decided to disregard courts. Both, claim there is 'no other way', but to take direct action.

The concept of people massing in DC, and storming political buildings, like some banana republic, or alternatively, hearing rumours and using it to destroy people's lives -- without trial, evidence, or all that 'nonsense', are two sides of a coin.

It's all the same method. It's casting aside process, rule of law, belief in the system, and more.

So I'd urge anyone, anywhere, with whatever politics in the US to think hard on this.

There's no case, ever, no matter what, where throwing out the concept of due process is right and correct. Ever.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

on the other hand the Prof gave to student one of the best lessons, the lesson of life Kinda kidding, but the faster you learn how to handle critics, the better for you.

And the faster you learn how to give good criticism, the better for you. Being cavalier about other people undermines your ability to effectively communicate.

It's way harder to change other people

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When we apply "toxic" to a person or his behaviour, we borrow that seriousness. what makes you think so? words means in theirs contextes whatever people attributed to them, and I've never seen toxic used in other context than somebody trashtalking somebody and being called toxic, so definitely not dangerous.

> what makes you think so? Because that's how language works. You don't call somebody a neanderthal to imply he has great hair.

>Because that's how language works.

Exactly, language changes dynamically

People years ago started using "toxic" to describe people who are negatively affecting them - e.g in games via trashtalk.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#264
post #29

> Sarah Mei then went through the board members involved one by one, digging into each of their histories, and tweeting what she viewed as fire-worthy infractions. The crimes included: “being super involved with Wikipedia,” retweeting a “hideous” New York Times editorial, and being friendly with famed democracy activist and law professor Lawrence Lessig. Publicly calling out each board member in turn with a clear imp…

Here is the thread in question: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1172283772428906496.html

Ironic that even that rant could be characterized as misogynistic in how it dispenses its ire:

One person in the list is a former chair of the Wikimedia board (and wikipedia arbitration committee member), the another is an academic whom among many other things has written some papers on Wikipedia.

Yet it's the second person-- a man-- the author uses "seems super involved with Wikipedia" as a smear against, the first -- a woman-- is ignored.

While I'm sure she welcomed dodging that harassment, it's kind of sad that even when supposedly defending women this speaker seems doesn't take them seriously.

Equality should include equality in being targeted with rediculous smears. :)

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#265
post #158
post #9

> Activists quickly found his reputation for asking women out and making jokes about “EMACS virgins." I'm all in favor of believing victims of sexual harassment and assault. Those claims are so very rarely made falsely that they should be taken very seriously. But what about claims that a man/woman made sexual jokes or "inappropriate" innuendo? Certainly they can be cause for concern if the accused is someone who has…

He was actively avoided by the women of the MIT media Lab. That speaks a lot just by itself. Flirtation is game around boundaries. When you overstep once, society/the woman will look over it. If you do all the time you will be labeled and avoided. Maybe he applies his stubbornness to everything in life. Which can have outcomes from the awesomeness of a FSF, to isolation or to a lifelong sentence in a prison. Depends…

Please don't repeat unsourced vaguely remembered third party accusations as fact.

[I'm aware from your other comments that you believe you are remembering a post you saw in 2019, but someone could easily mistake your comment as an independent source or repeating an established fact.]

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#266
post #260
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not a partition between the things you said, it's a partition between beliefs that would be held absent any reward vs beliefs that are only held due to a reward. You keep implying that the only possible reason people would denounce RMS's behavior is because they 'get rewarded' for it. I'm surprised you can be so certain about it, when it's perfectly possible they are doing it because they've suffered abuse the…

I don't mean to imply that all criticism of RMS is invalid at all. If that's what you got from my explanation that his detractors fall into two separate camps, then I must not have explained it very well. Let me be absolutely clear, then. Some people criticise RMS because they don't like the things he said for moral reasons, whether intuitive or explicitly thought through. Those people mostly act in a way that they b…

> Some people criticise RMS because they've been trained by the Skinner box that is social media to dogpile onto anyone who's the target of criticism, or because all their friends don't like RMS and they want to fit in, or because they've made a career out of outrage. I don't like these people and view them as pack-hunting predators.

Sure, but this behavior isn't any different from people dogpiling on attacking perceived 'SJW' behavior. Somehow Hacker News seems to be very sensitive to one kind of dogpiling while completely ignoring the other.

For example, I didn't see anyone here screaming about Timnit Gebru's being forced out of Google because her research didn't align with the company's vision. Most of the comments about the topic were people either defending Google or accusing her of being 'too lefty' and therefore deserving of the outcome.

So it seems that Hacker News isn't so much concerned about 'free speech' in the work place, but rather about certain kinds of free speech being allowed, while others... they are pretty ambivalent about.

> With regards to the rest of the post, I feel like you're fishing for things to be angry at me for, on the basis of a fundamental miscommunication.

Nah, I just thought your example was a bit apples and oranges, but no bad feelings.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#267
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn't be, but it surely helps to not be eaten by piranhas immediately. Somebody without this kind of shield - especially somebody, say, having a misfortune of being a male and of European descent - might be. I personally have been told many times that I do not get to have opinion about cancel culture and ideology because of my identity. Having credentials that even PC zealots can't deny surely helps to make it…

> I do not get to have opinion about cancel culture and ideology because of my identity That works both ways, you can ignore them back because they are of a different identity (as they insist) and they are biased against your own identity. I have already begun to doubt the papers of woke scientists in the last year. If they are not inclusive they are not worth my time. For example a researcher raising scandal on raci…

Well, as a private matter I am certainly going to ignore their claims that my identity somehow automatically makes my opinions invalid. The sad truth, however, is that they have much more clout currently in many of our society's institutions - like the academia, the education, the press, the administrative state - that people, who, like myself and many other, smarter and more prominent people in the past, thought that identity is not what defines right or wrong. Now, in many cases, it does, at least when the political and institutional power is concerned.

> Why should I take her seriously?

You and I may not. But people who distribute grants, academic positions, book deals, who compose curricula and who make political decisions - would. That's the problem. And until the cultural norm is forged to make this not happen, the problem will continue.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#268
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't require complete agreement - it does require same level of agreement and cooperation that allows us to have common language, common culture, common laws, Open Source projects, charities, etc. Just a common understanding that empowering people that thrive on tearing down and destroying others is bad for everybody, and we should not fall for any noble words they veil themselves with and see through it to the…

> It doesn't require complete agreement - it does require same level of agreement and cooperation that allows us to have common language, common culture, common laws, Open Source projects, charities, etc.... > Yes, there will always be those who do not abide for the societal convention for one reason or another. I mean, as far as I can tell, the "societal convention" you're advocating for doesn't exist as such, so yo…

Yes, it does not exist yet. It needs to be created, if we don't want our society to be consumed by attention-hungry trolls. I think a lot of people - whether right-wing, left-wing or neither - are starting to realize that.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#269
post #62

> Luckily, another co-author on the book has spent a lot of time pondering inclusion, women’s rights, children’s rights, and free speech. Her name is Nadine Strossen and her credentials run deep. She served as the first female President of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), America’s largest and oldest civil liberties nonprofit, from 1991 to 2008. When she stepped down as President, three Supreme Court Justic…

It shouldn't be, but it surely helps to not be eaten by piranhas immediately. Somebody without this kind of shield - especially somebody, say, having a misfortune of being a male and of European descent - might be. I personally have been told many times that I do not get to have opinion about cancel culture and ideology because of my identity. Having credentials that even PC zealots can't deny surely helps to make it…

> I personally have been told many times that I do not get to have opinion about cancel culture and ideology because of my identity.

Yeah, what's up with that? I guess people are supposed to shut up, stop thinking about this stuff and just accept whatever they say as gospel because they are right and just and can do no wrong.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#270
post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wasn't punished, he was fired. You're allowed to revoke consent to an interaction or business relationship at any time. It's not a punishment to anyone else to say "this situation (employing rms) isn't for me and I don't want to be in it any longer". Firing isn't punitive.

Firing is absolutely punitive.

A job is an agreement between two parties.

Revoking consent to a mutually-agreed-upon interaction is not punitive. Consent today does not imply consent tomorrow.

Post reply on HN