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

Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

frenchpress.thedispatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 366 posts

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#51

Post by klyrs »

josephcsible wrote: post #39
klyrs wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why does Professor Sachs make this assertion? On November 12, the governor signed a bill that makes it unlawful to include “instruction relating to critical race theory in any portion of the district's required curriculum ... or any other curriculum offered by the district or school .” Now do the steel man (emphasis mine)

Isn't this still the same distinction? That's still just saying that nobody can force students to learn about critical race theory, not that they can't go read about it on their own if they want.

No, it says that critical race theory cannot be offered. That's specific and distinct from required.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#52

Post by TrispusAttucks »

josephcsible wrote: post #2

One major distinction this glosses over is the difference between making it so you can't read something (e.g., banning it), and making it so you aren't required to read something (e.g., removing it from the curriculum). Only the former is censorship.

You are correct. Not sure why you're getting down voted.

Just because Pinocchio isn't in the curriculum doesn't mean it's banned. You can still get it in the school library.

Not in curriculum != Banned

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#53

Post by FpUser »

23B1 wrote: post #28
Nursie wrote: post #18

The rants about "cancel culture" from the US right are hilarious, given their long history of boycotts of brands they dislike and escalating hate and fear for everything up to actual book burnings of material like Harry Potter. I'm not saying that the accusations of cancel culture are unfounded, I'm saying they are wildly hypocritical. (It's good that efforts at censorship on the right are raised in the article as a…

In realpolitik, hypocrisy is a feature not a bug.

You do not have to go that far to find hypocrisy. It is quite alive and well here for example.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#54

Post by rustybelt »

otterley wrote: post #29
11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain why that is true.

Because a core value of modern conservatism in the U.S. (as expressed through the leadership of the Republican Party) is questioning the outcomes of freely- and fairly-held elections (including the last Presidential election), to place new obstacles in allowing qualified citizens to vote, and resisting changes that would make it easier for more people to vote (such as voting by mobile phone, or on a weekend).

Questioning the outcome of elections is far from exclusive to conservatives.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#55

Post by 11thEarlOfMar »

otterley wrote: post #29
11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain why that is true.

Because a core value of modern conservatism in the U.S. (as expressed through the leadership of the Republican Party) is questioning the outcomes of freely- and fairly-held elections (including the last Presidential election), to place new obstacles in allowing qualified citizens to vote, and resisting changes that would make it easier for more people to vote (such as voting by mobile phone, or on a weekend).

Observations of possible irregularities in an election are not proof, however, a fairly held election is one in which the votes can be explicitly audited by any of the candidates, and each voter's valid status can be verified after the vote is completed and counted and a winner is declared. Is that true in today's elections? (and was it ever true). If so, any questions can be resolved through executing an audit, and no one needs to seek the Supreme Court.

Allowing the votes of qualified citizens to be counted in an election is part and parcel of operating a fully auditable election. Whatever fully auditable approach offers the fewest obstacles is where we should land, as long as feasibility and practicality are contemplated. At least once, each voter needs to provide evidence that they are a US citizen, and that they reside in the district for which they are voting. Thereafter, there needs to be an auditable trail connecting their vote with their eligibility.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#56

Post by josephcsible »

Nursie wrote: post #47
josephcsible wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legitimate boycotts are against stuff that people are currently doing bad, and they end when the bad stuff does. Cancel culture goes after people that tweeted something bad 15 years ago, that they've already recanted and apologized for, and never ends.

And burning Harry Potter books? Trying to fearmonger about D&D and heavy metal? Are these legitimate boycotts? > they end when the bad stuff does I would dispute this too, actually. Once you've proven yourself to be a shitbag, I'm not going back to your products ever if I can help it. Nothing illegitimate about that, it's called "voting with your wallet", which is nicely capitalist behaviour. Regardless, whichever wa…

> And burning Harry Potter books? Trying to fearmonger about D&D and heavy metal?

Yes. The people doing those boycotts believe those things are actively causing harm to people. I don't agree, of course, but that doesn't make them illegitimate.

> Once you've proven yourself to be a shitbag, I'm not going back to your products ever if I can help it. Nothing illegitimate about that, it's called "voting with your wallet", which is nicely capitalist behaviour.

Imagine you lived in the first century AD, and you boycotted everything Saul of Tarsus was involved with, because of the religious persecution he committed. After he had his conversion and became Paul the Apostle, would you really continue to boycott him?

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#58

Post by josephcsible »

klyrs wrote: post #51
josephcsible wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this still the same distinction? That's still just saying that nobody can force students to learn about critical race theory, not that they can't go read about it on their own if they want.

No, it says that critical race theory cannot be offered . That's specific and distinct from required .

Ah, I see: that affects whether it's allowed to be taught in an elective class or not. Yes, to fully oppose censorship, we should allow critical race theory to be taught in optional elective social studies classes. But then we should also allow optional elective science classes to teach that evolution is wrong, because to do otherwise would be censoring the young-Earth creationists.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#59

Post by Nursie »

josephcsible wrote: post #56
Nursie wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And burning Harry Potter books? Trying to fearmonger about D&D and heavy metal? Are these legitimate boycotts? > they end when the bad stuff does I would dispute this too, actually. Once you've proven yourself to be a shitbag, I'm not going back to your products ever if I can help it. Nothing illegitimate about that, it's called "voting with your wallet", which is nicely capitalist behaviour. Regardless, whichever wa…

> And burning Harry Potter books? Trying to fearmonger about D&D and heavy metal? Yes. The people doing those boycotts believe those things are actively causing harm to people. I don't agree, of course, but that doesn't make them illegitimate. > Once you've proven yourself to be a shitbag, I'm not going back to your products ever if I can help it. Nothing illegitimate about that, it's called "voting with your wallet"…

> that doesn't make them illegitimate.

neither is it illegitimate to continue to boycott something you think is likely still causing harm but is now just being quiet about it.

> After he had his conversion and became Paul the Apostle, would you really continue to boycott him?

Given I don't believe in any of his writings, nor that the church he helped bring into being is a force for good, sure, why not? I'm boycotting him right now.

But all of this is a sideshow - the hypocrisy is the point.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#60

Post by otterley »

rustybelt wrote: post #54
otterley wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a core value of modern conservatism in the U.S. (as expressed through the leadership of the Republican Party) is questioning the outcomes of freely- and fairly-held elections (including the last Presidential election), to place new obstacles in allowing qualified citizens to vote, and resisting changes that would make it easier for more people to vote (such as voting by mobile phone, or on a weekend).

Questioning the outcome of elections is far from exclusive to conservatives.

You won't find liberals questioning election outcomes that were determined by a margin of thousands of votes with a clear paper trail. The 2000 election in Florida, which you're probably thinking of, involved just a few hundred votes where the intent of the voter wasn't super clear (hence the "hanging chads" brouhaha); and once the election outcome was finally determined, liberals let things go. While they disagreed with the procedure and were upset about the outcome for a while, they didn't let it define their party for the next 4+ years.
Post reply on HN