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

Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 474 posts

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#381

Post by ryanong »

bostonsre wrote: post #371
eagsalazar2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a lot different than being "canceled". The school must abide by policies and incorporate student's right to free speech, access to education, and equitable access to related school services and programs (including cheerleading). Being "canceled" is a choice that private individuals and institutions make to not associate themselves with speech, actions, or views they find either objectionable or simply damagin…

> Conflating these things is a favorite straw man of people who simply feel scared and angry that they don't always get to be jerks with zero social or career implications (try going around saying you are a satanist and see how that affects your career, this isn't a new thing, just people are whining about it more loudly lately). They are very much not the same. I find it hard to believe that the anti cancelation arg…

Being harassed/doxed is different than being cancelled

It is important to disambiguate the two

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#382

Post by em-bee »

exporectomy wrote: post #144
em-bee wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

worse. if you can't associate with such people, then you can't work to change their mind either. i remember a story about someone who made friends with kkk members, and one by one managed to turn them away from the kkk. that probably took some time for each person, during which he had to have been seen associating with them.

Why change their mind? You can also let them change your mind. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you're right and they're wrong. For these big ethical and moral issues, people are often completely certain their view is right but they can't explain why. The reason is probably because their society tells them they'll be a bad person (at risk of being shunned!) for thinking otherwise. Strong social punishment for h…

You can also let them change your mind

only if they are able to convince me, but even if they are completely certain their view is right but they can't explain why, then they will not be able to do that. if you want to change someones mind you need to understand and be able to explain why they are wrong.

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#383

Post by logicchains »

tzs wrote: post #295
ascorbic wrote: post #224

Anyone else find it ridiculously coy that the Washington Post censors the word "fuck" in the quote that is the crux of the case. I'm sure the readers are all adults who can handle them accurately reporting the quote. Kids aren't reading the Washington Post Courts & Law section.

> Kids aren't reading the Washington Post Courts & Law section. I wouldn't be so sure of that. I remember as a kid we were occasionally given homework to find an interesting current events newspaper story and bring it to class to read out loud. I remember going over all the news sections when looking for a good story, not just the sections you would have expected an ~9 year old to be interested in. I remember once fi…

>I remember once finding a story in the international news section about a legislator in some other well known country that all of us kids would have heard of who had yelled during a session that some other legislator was a son of bitch, and then a fistfight broke out between them.

Was it Australia by any chance?

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#384

Post by em-bee »

watwut wrote: post #178
em-bee wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

worse. if you can't associate with such people, then you can't work to change their mind either. i remember a story about someone who made friends with kkk members, and one by one managed to turn them away from the kkk. that probably took some time for each person, during which he had to have been seen associating with them.

However, he did not managed to endanger KKK power one bit. And way more people who socialize in KKK circles end up naturally moving toward racism and extremes of it. They change toward racism, because that is what choose to hear most of time. It so happens that these are quite aggressive when voice disagreements with them, so socialising with the requires you to pretend you agree, at least on the edges. It works like…

that is a rather defeatist attitude. just because one person won't have much effect at changing a large group of people, doesn't mean their effort is worthless. (besides, it is also not correct that he didn't manage to change anything. read the above linked wikipedia page. he dismantled the kkk in one state. when a new leader emerged, he converted that person too. if a few more people do that all over the US, keep it up for a generation or two, the kkk could be gone)

there is also quite a difference between people who socialize in kkk circles, and those who befriend individuals with the intent of changing their mind. the latter, for certain will not only socialize in kkk circles but also in other circles where they get the necessary grounding for their work to change those people.

i understand your point. from your perspective it makes sense. but i think you are missing something. pretending to agree does not make me believe what i pretend to. but i also think that pretending is not needed here, but rather it's important to empathize with my opponent, and then gently educate them to point out the flaws in their argument.

if i am working with someone to educate them and change their mind, then i am not joining their bubble. i am not giving up on my other circles either. rather i am breaking out of my bubble, and i help others break out of theirs. i end up with a better understanding of why they have their beliefs, and they hopefully get a better understanding why they might be wrong. we both gain something.

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#386

Post by Mirioron »

ryanong wrote: post #381
bostonsre wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Conflating these things is a favorite straw man of people who simply feel scared and angry that they don't always get to be jerks with zero social or career implications (try going around saying you are a satanist and see how that affects your career, this isn't a new thing, just people are whining about it more loudly lately). They are very much not the same. I find it hard to believe that the anti cancelation arg…

Being harassed/doxed is different than being cancelled It is important to disambiguate the two

The difference being that in one case they harass you directly and in the other they harass your employer, family, and any future employers?

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#387

Post by ipaddr »

sanderjd wrote: post #298
axaxs wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good points all around. Since work is so vital to our everyday survival, and as pointed out, often health insurance, it should be much harder or with much better reason to fire someone than what currently exists today(which, in most states is nothing). I by no means intended to advocate for chiseling out special protections for bigots or antagonists.

I'll admit to a little frustration with people who act like current law (usually the first amendment) protects people from "cancellation" by private actors. But I'm more open to arguments that we should create new employment law that makes it harder to arbitrarily fire people. I don't think this is a good idea, for the record, but it is a reasonable argument to make. Many other countries have much stronger worker pro…

It is crazy the lack of protections around firing people. People fear that it would be harder for businesses to fire someone so they would be less eager to hire. But then you connect any health services to being employed and you created a big hole in the overall plan.

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#388

Post by ipaddr »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #307
a1369209993 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume they mean (and I agree) that society should try to prevent bullying (that is, criminal harrasment) by reporting it to the police , not by engaging in vigilante 'justice', which is what any school discipline for off campus activity (and really, cancel culture in general) amounts to. If you believe your vigilanteism is justified (because, and only because, the police won't or can't do their jobs) the onus is o…

Uh, so if a kid needs a stern talking to you better call the police (and not their parents) is what you are saying?

If someone is bullying online block them or call the police.

Going to parents is probably unwise for a variety of reasons. Possible could solve the issue but more likely will increase the drama without providing any real punishment.

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#389

Post by ascorbic »

sodality2 wrote: post #314
ascorbic wrote: post #224

Anyone else find it ridiculously coy that the Washington Post censors the word "fuck" in the quote that is the crux of the case. I'm sure the readers are all adults who can handle them accurately reporting the quote. Kids aren't reading the Washington Post Courts & Law section.

We were asked to read this article this morning in US Government actually!

I'd say that anyone capable of discussing this case and its implications is capable of reading the word "fuck" uncensored without being corrupted any further than by reading "f--k"

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#390

Post by Igelau »

KMag wrote: post #366
Igelau wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ageist? I didn't say they all were, just the ones with this special kind of anti-youth aggression. You know, the ageist ones.

Without supporting justification, you literally said that only members of the baby boomer generation who also have lead poisoning would continue to act in such a shameful way after being rebuked. I'm not a Boomer, but I feel like sloppy reasoning and other prejudices should be resisted whenever they are encountered. Saying "only a boomer with lead poisoning would continue to act so shamefully" isn't conceptually diff…

> Does that make it more clear why that phrasing should be called out?

You have successfully obscured the issue even further by introducing the irrelevant factor of race.

> sloppy reasoning and other prejudices should be resisted whenever they are encountered

Providing an excellent example in the process. If I seem as confused to you as you do to me, then maybe we have found some common ground.

Post reply on HN