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

Chess Grandmaster Kasparov on Mob Mentality and Groupthink

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 180 posts

Re: Chess Grandmaster Kasparov on Mob Mentality and Groupthink

#111

Post by noelwelsh »

JamesBarney wrote: post #97
noelwelsh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I've never seen anything but pro-freedom of speech from the right" This seems a very naive or disingenuous take. Here are two examples that immediately came to mind: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Art... particularly actions against Mapplethorpe - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy_of_the_Oppressed#Rece... 2006 Arizona State Legislature

I don't know if deciding whether not to fund the NEA or what books can be taught in school is really anti-freedom of speech. Someone has to decide what to teach children. Teachers and parents both influence that decision. Teachers through what books they pick and parents through who they elect. And since Teachers are to the left the population as a whole, it makes sense that they would push books to the left of cente…

What, then, do you think is an action that is against freedom of speech?

To me these are textbook examples of censorship. Note that I don't think your summary captures the relevant facts.

NEA: the issue is not whether it should be funded but how the funds, which were already approved, were allocated. Exhibitions were cancelled after receiving funding due to political pressure, and 4 artists won a court case when their funding was vetoed due to political pressure.

Pedagogy of the oppressed. I'll just quote wikipedia here: "The book was among seven titles officially confiscated from Mexican American studies classrooms, sometimes in front of students, by the Tucson Unified School District after the passing of HB 2281." This was ruled a violation of the First Amendment: https://ncac.org/news/blog/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-a...

Re: Chess Grandmaster Kasparov on Mob Mentality and Groupthink

#112

Post by not1ofU »

liber8 wrote: post #98
handrous wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone feels that one side had a harder path to begin with due to context outside the presentation/debate itself, that can happen. To veer dangerously close to Godwinning, but I think for good reason, consider how much better a holocaust denial argument would have to be than its opponents', for you to agree with that side. You might well come away going "damn, they really did do a better job of presenting their c…

The fact that you have to repeatedly and expressly clarify that you're not equating cancel culture with holocaust denial is apt given the topic at hand. No intellectually honest person reading your analogy would be able to conclude that you're equating the two topics. And yet almost all of us feel the need to include these kinds of disclaimers so we don't face backlash from anonymous strangers on a tiny message board…

Love this. "No intellectually honest person reading your analogy would be able to [reasonably] conclude that you're equating the two topics."

Added one word. Would like to add, the oppocite of what you state, seems to be the default behaviour in the cancel culture climate, which shuts down a lot of reasonable commentors, as in, "fuck it, I am staying out of this one"

Re: Chess Grandmaster Kasparov on Mob Mentality and Groupthink

#113

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

tomp wrote: post #85
civilized wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The challenge with this debate is that the meaning of "cancel culture" is too broad, verging on incoherent. Examples of "cancellation" range from people who experienced harsh consequences for minimal or imaginary "offenses", like Justine Sacco and Donald McNeil, to powerful serial sex offenders like Harvey Weinstein.

But surely you can simultaneously think that Weinstein shouldn't have been cancelled (mostly by his almost-equally perverted friends who dropped him like hot lava when he started becoming toxic, to save their own reputations, after having cozied up to him for years/decades) and still think he should be charged/jailed for actual crimes by actual justice system.

Sure, you could, but that seems a little perverse by itself. Choosing to remain friends with someone you know you to be the serial perpetrator of sexual assault while also favoring their conviction and imprisonment seems ... odd, at best.

What makes the Weinstein case difficult are the widespread claims that lots of people in Weinstein's circle did know what he was doing, and did not (a) report him (b) dissassociate from him. Their lack of willingness to report him (let alone their willingness to actively aid him) means that they are not part of the category described above.

[ EDITED because my final sentence was a clear logical error, but is now correct. ]

Re: Chess Grandmaster Kasparov on Mob Mentality and Groupthink

#114

Post by dlp211 »

GoodbyeMrChips wrote: post #87
dlp211 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People choosing to no longer listen to you because you have ideas that are currently considered reprehensible to the larger society is not being cancelled. That's called consequences for my actions. You are not entitled to consequence free speech & actions. This has never been a principle of free speech. Also, there is a massive difference between using government entities to ban books, and a bunch of people on Twitt…

Ummmm Our UK students unions are repeatedly preventing people speaking on campuses because they object to their views [1]. This IS 'cancel culture' and it is not healthy for our democracy. Whatever happend to "I disprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" ? [1] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-is-cancel-culture-aff...

You are not entitled to a platform. The student body choosing who they want to listen to is, in and of itself, a form of speech. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to understand?

Re: Chess Grandmaster Kasparov on Mob Mentality and Groupthink

#115

Post by dlp211 »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #70
dlp211 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People choosing to no longer listen to you because you have ideas that are currently considered reprehensible to the larger society is not being cancelled. That's called consequences for my actions. You are not entitled to consequence free speech & actions. This has never been a principle of free speech. Also, there is a massive difference between using government entities to ban books, and a bunch of people on Twitt…

That's exactly one of the benefits of free speech. A kind of inverse of the "remain silent and be thought a fool, or speak up and remove all doubt" saying. Free and open discussion lets me know who's worthwhile listening to and who should be ignored.

And after having spoken and been declared a fool, are we not allowed to say "no more"?

Re: Chess Grandmaster Kasparov on Mob Mentality and Groupthink

#116

Post by glangdale »

dgfitz wrote: post #102
heurisko wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even as a kid I instinctively understood that as a white dude I have it easier in America I think Barack Obama got it right, when he recognised that talk of "white privilege", bred resentment especially amongst the working class, despite some, usually of the left leaning middle-class, willing to adopt the label to describe themselves. > In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most wo…

I sure would like to see a lot of replies to this comment, from the left and the right. That quote is quite thought-provoking. Playing the thought experiment that the former president is on to something, it seems ironic that the left claim to badly want to help the poor and underprivileged where (it seems) a decent-sized sub-group of said poor and underprivileged are of right persuasion.

It's not inconsistent to want to 'badly want to help' groups that aren't on your political side. I may be a left-liberal, but working class conservatives arguing for lower taxes are in fact arguing for an arrangement that would benefit me far more than it would benefit them.

Re: Chess Grandmaster Kasparov on Mob Mentality and Groupthink

#117

Post by javajosh »

Levitz wrote: post #107
javajosh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BLM's problem[1] is that it's a national movement about local problems. It's city cops, not the FBI, that kill people with impunity. The presidential election is generally not the right place to take action, IMHO [2]. In any event, it seems to me that BLM should focus on police money, and ways to put that money in the hands of people who feel that killing unarmed civilians is wrong, the militarization of the police i…

>BLM's problem[1] is that it's a national movement about local problems. It's city cops, not the FBI, that kill people with impunity. Which happens because black people are overrepresented when it comes to crime, which happens because they are overrepresented in being poor as dirt. There is racism in the police force in the US, no doubt, but constantly dealing with criminals and seeing a disparity in a race is bound…

I don't know that much about the internal workings of BLM. But I would think the most effective path forward is to become a viable, powerful political bloc, and then use this power to court local establishment politicians. (Heck, in a better time even the GOP would not be immune to the lure of millions of coherent votes!)

This approach won't work because blacks don't vote. Which I frankly don't understand. Even with problematic voter laws, I can't think of a scenario, short of someone pointing a gun in my face, that would stop me from voting. And yet, awhile back in the Abrams race in black turnout in Georgia was like 50%. That is...insanely low, and implies a thick, wide self-destructive streak. It bodes poorly for the community, because if you can't be bothered to help yourself, then what hope do you have of changing your situation?

Re: Chess Grandmaster Kasparov on Mob Mentality and Groupthink

#118

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

lhorie wrote: post #42
glangdale wrote: post #17

> Schools are being pressured to remove books and cancel professors for spreading the “wrong” ideas. These sentiments are all too familiar to me, and to anyone who has survived life in a dictatorship. The only answer is more freedom, more speech, not less. This is a good sentiment, but it's worth noting that the overwhelming majority of pressure to "cancel" books and academics is directed at the left by the right, re…

I think it's interesting phenomenon on its own that Kasparov is taking a fairly centrist stance here through a careful choice of words (cancelling books getting tends to be done by one side and cancelling professors is often done by the other side) and specifically calling out to promote more freedom regardless of what side you're on, but here in the comments people are looking at it from a bipartisan blame-shifting…

> (cancelling books getting tends to be done by one side and cancelling professors is often done by the other side

I can name dozens of books that have been "cancelled", almost entirely by conservatives.

Depending on the definition of "cancel", I can think of very few professors that have been "cancelled" [0] at all, and roughly equal numbers by conservative and progressive perspectives.

[0] "cancelled" in this case seems to typically mean not a lot more than had to listen to some unpleasant feedback on their views and/or behavior.

Re: Chess Grandmaster Kasparov on Mob Mentality and Groupthink

#119

Post by gunapologist99 »

newacct583 wrote: post #7

The first example cites what I guess is an attempted cancellation of Peter Thiel: > In his recent book “The Contrarian,” journalist Max Chafkin assigns an ideology to Mr. Thiel, then defines it as “fascist” and even tries to blame this concocted “Thielism” for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. There is little doubt that the book would never have come to be had Mr. Thiel not supported Donald Trump in 2016. I mean, OK. I guess…

Why would Thiel, an individual, "cancel" and destroy an entire corporation? (And how often does that even happen, anyway?)

It seems disingenuous to not also mention why Thiel was angry with Gawker, and to not also mention that most people will never be in a position to be able to fight back when a giant media corporation publishes private and personal details about our lives.

Re: Chess Grandmaster Kasparov on Mob Mentality and Groupthink

#120

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #80
downWidOutaFite wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Cancel culture" is a recent term invented by the right as a pejorative for the left, so if you're going to use that loaded term you're signaling which side of the partisan divide you are on.

It’s funny how you cannot criticize anything anymore because whatever you say it gets interpreted as a right-wing neonazi dogwhistle.

Yes, that is pretty funny, given that TFA is an article criticizing cancel culture itself, and that HN and an almost uncountable number of other media forms are full of actual criticism of all manner of things.
Post reply on HN