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

Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

tarahenley.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 441 posts

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#401

Post by lettergram »

tdeck wrote: post #384
lettergram wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Authoritarian - centrally controlled and managed Marxism - attempt to remove classes from society The Marxism is being implemented through high taxes and redistribution of wealth via services centrally administered via government. That seems to meet the definition.

What you're describing are simply ordinary welfare state policies, and what you view as "high taxes" are not particularly high compared to historical tax rates even within the US. The idea that you'd have to be a Marxist to want to centralize health insurance to reduce costs so people don't go bankrupt paying for medical care is simply propaganda. In fact, most Marxists would probably view these kinds of measures as…

> What you're describing are simply ordinary welfare state policies

Yes, people who support these policies are authoritarian Marxists. I'm not disparaging it, it just is what it is.

The U.S. is authoritarian and largely Marxist.

> The idea that you'd have to be a Marxist to want to centralize health insurance to reduce costs so people don't go bankrupt paying for medical care is simply propaganda.

Not propaganda, it is by definition what it is. It's not really arguable. The propaganda are the opinions on whether or not it's good. There's a fair argument it's good to make centralized healthcare, there's a fair argument against.

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#402

Post by djkivi »

monkeybutton wrote: post #28

I wonder where she will go after publishing her book. Postmedia? Bell media? Staying independent? The news landscape in Canada is rather limited and still consolidating. Think what you may about the CBC and its biases, its nothing compared to the National Post where the owner, Conrad Black, airs his crappy opinions.

Conrad Black hasn't owned the National Post for over 20 years.

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#403

Post by _-david-_ »

metabagel wrote: post #325
coolso wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good. This pronoun virtue signaling meme has gotta go. Or at least don’t censor us by limiting us to the ones Officially Approved by the Pronoun Establishment like Instagram and most other places do. If they can have custom pronouns, why can’t we? (The answer is because it would immediately undermine the “cause” by shedding light on just how silly but also how 1984-esque the concept is.)

I would think that virtue signaling is good. It sure sounds good. "Virtue" means " Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness." "Signaling" means "An indicator, such as a gesture or colored light, that serves as a means of communication." So, basically if I'm morally excellent and I communicate that to you, that's a bad thing? Why is that? Is it because it makes you feel bad? Same question about "woke". Like, "not…

Virtue signalling does not mean you have virtue. Just that you are attempting to signal to others that you do have virtue.

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#404

Post by finite_jest »

ninkendo wrote: post #146
elevenoh wrote: post #46

Quoted post unavailable.

"Wokeism" is a pejorative catch-all term for all the negative aspects of trying to be against racism, so it's kind of true by definition, isn't it? Literally no one is defending "wokeism" any more than people are defending "racism", because the terms themselves are intended to convey something negative. It makes the term kind of useless, wouldn't you think? It's a placeholder term for whatever you don't like.

Not really, woke used to be a word people used to identify themselves with. [1] And Tyler Cownen recently wrote opinion piece on Bloomberg defending wokism. [2]

It is not "a placeholder term for whatever you don't like", not in any meaningful sense.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

[2]: [Why Wokeism Will Rule the World](https://archive.fo/OaowM)

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#405

Post by 908B64B197 »

zacmps wrote: post #398
olivermarks wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(response to post that was just deleted) 'critical to note that she is just recounting of her own perception of herself.' Tara is outlining why she quit a job she couldn't do anymore because the CBC were ignoring important local stories to focus on CRT, identity politics and racialization of everything, biased reporting and click bait. 'People want to know why, for example, non-binary Filipinos concerned about a lack…

This is not at all how journalism works. Journalism requires editorial freedom, who pays the bills should have literally no impact on reporting; this is true even when with meta coverage of the publication or owner in question. Anything else is not journalism.

> Journalism requires editorial freedom, who pays the bills should have literally no impact on reporting

And yet we all know that's not what really happens.

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#406

Post by dwaltrip »

swearwolf wrote: post #385
mavrc wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or how JKR on Harry Potter went from being vilified by conservative voices to the modern "She who will not be named" of Lefty HBO. well, that's for one very specific and notable reason alone, not because of some shifting moral landscape.

She got cancelled for an essay that essentially says, “Trans women are fine, and I support them, but they are not the same as people who are born women”, which is a position that went from relatively uncontroversial to transphobic within the last five or so years.

What point was she trying to make by highlighting any distinction?

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#407

Post by boppo1 »

ameminator wrote: post #365
boppo1 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ACLU defense of their speech a monument to our civilization's respect of human rights. Is there an argument from a landmark case or are you speaking gsnerally?

Here is the specific case I am referencing: https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/sk...

Neat, thanks

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#408

Post by kerneloftruth »

dwaltrip wrote: post #406
swearwolf wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She got cancelled for an essay that essentially says, “Trans women are fine, and I support them, but they are not the same as people who are born women”, which is a position that went from relatively uncontroversial to transphobic within the last five or so years.

What point was she trying to make by highlighting any distinction?

I think she was countering the assertion that there is no distinction with the fact that the distinction is real, and is important.

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#409

Post by dang »

hammock wrote: post #391
dang wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, ok—I was probably reading your comment through the filter of "comments supporting my view are constantly getting downvoted/flagged/suppressed on this site", which is a more common complaint (which was also making appearances in this thread). Software can indeed affect subthread ranking, and moderators do that too—but certainly not for pro- or anti-diversity (or any other $divisive-topic) reasons. We downweight to…

Have you considered transparency for when you down-weight a specific post or thread?

I don't see a reason to treat that type of moderation decision separately from others, so your question amounts to whether we'd publish a complete moderation log. We've certainly considered that, but I don't think it would be a good idea—the fear is that it would end up just leading to a lot more procedural questions from a small minority of users, that would take tons of time to answer, without doing anything to benefit the majority of the community.

Instead, the approach we take to transparency is to be willing to answer specific questions when people have them. It seems to work fairly well. Not everyone is satisfied with that, but most users are, and of the ones who aren't, a nontrivial portion wouldn't be satisfied with a complete moderation log either.

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#410

Post by moistly »

version_five wrote: post #373
reallyagain wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're running straight into an established Canadian conservative talking point. It's pushed relentlessly by private news organisations who would reap financial benefit from the CBC being defunded. These organizations also happen to be the major news and opinion source for many conservative people in this country, so there's a convenient feedback loop in place. I'm sure this is not dissimilar to the other countries l…

I really don't see how one could look at CBCs news coverage and feel that way. It's the propaganda arm of the Liberal party, plain and simple. The "childish" take would be really believing that CBC is anything but a liberal mouthpiece. All mainstream Canadian news organizations are garbage, I don't mean to say there is a better alternative, but our tax money only pays for one of them.

I could go on, linking to abundant examples of CBC savaging all parties but I’ll sum up your take with one summarizing word: bullshit.
Post reply on HN