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

Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times

popehat.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 633 posts

Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times

#11

Post by Mountain_Skies »

Latty wrote: post #5
BitwiseFool wrote: post #3

> "Our failure to have a serious discussion about defining “cancel culture” encourages this. When some people vaguely complain about “cancel culture” in a way that lends itself to promoting this constant partisanship, other people not unreasonably see it as partisan." Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does. Each one of us h…

> I don't know what Popehat actually wants here. For people to stop calling it "cancel culture" whenever they face reasonable consequences for actions they take that harm others would be a good start. People not wanting to patronize or associate with you when you cause harm to people they care about is really not a bad thing, and it's not new either, and yet it is what gets called "cancel culture" by a lot of people.…

When one is already in overshoot, it's a bad play to make demands in the direction you've already overextended yourself on.

Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times

#12

Post by abnry »

Latty wrote: post #5
BitwiseFool wrote: post #3

> "Our failure to have a serious discussion about defining “cancel culture” encourages this. When some people vaguely complain about “cancel culture” in a way that lends itself to promoting this constant partisanship, other people not unreasonably see it as partisan." Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does. Each one of us h…

> I don't know what Popehat actually wants here. For people to stop calling it "cancel culture" whenever they face reasonable consequences for actions they take that harm others would be a good start. People not wanting to patronize or associate with you when you cause harm to people they care about is really not a bad thing, and it's not new either, and yet it is what gets called "cancel culture" by a lot of people.…

> reasonable consequences for actions they take that harm others

This is what is at issue. What does "reasonable consequences" mean for "harm to others"? Sometimes the harm to others is disputed, as the harm is almost always considered emotional. Sometimes what is considered "reasonable consequences" is something as significant as loss of livelihood.

Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times

#13

Post by Imnimo »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #3

> "Our failure to have a serious discussion about defining “cancel culture” encourages this. When some people vaguely complain about “cancel culture” in a way that lends itself to promoting this constant partisanship, other people not unreasonably see it as partisan." Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does. Each one of us h…

>I don't know what Popehat actually wants here.

I think he wants people who say "we should end cancel culture" to recognize that their cause is not "the spirit of free speech".

Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times

#14

Post by nullc »

There is a big difference between:

(1) Not associating with someone who you know has done some wrong.

(2) Not associating with someone where there are unproven public rumors that they've done some wrong.

(3) Not associating with someone who associates with someone who is subject to unproven public rumors of wrong doing.

(4) Publicly attacking people over unproven rumors of wrong doing for which you have no personal knowledge.

(5) Publicly attacking people because they failed to engage in public attacks against a third person who is subject to unproven allegations which the attacking party (nor the party being attacked) have no personal knowledge. ("If you won't denounce Albert Einstein as a vile traitor here and now then you're a supporter of communism yourself!") -- or the N-th generation version of that ("You meta-meta-meta communist scum!").

(6) Complaining that the people with torches and pitchforks might be acting in a way which undermines the fairness or even viability of a civilized society.

Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times

#15

Post by BitwiseFool »

Latty wrote: post #5
BitwiseFool wrote: post #3

> "Our failure to have a serious discussion about defining “cancel culture” encourages this. When some people vaguely complain about “cancel culture” in a way that lends itself to promoting this constant partisanship, other people not unreasonably see it as partisan." Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does. Each one of us h…

> I don't know what Popehat actually wants here. For people to stop calling it "cancel culture" whenever they face reasonable consequences for actions they take that harm others would be a good start. People not wanting to patronize or associate with you when you cause harm to people they care about is really not a bad thing, and it's not new either, and yet it is what gets called "cancel culture" by a lot of people.…

When I mention that I don't understand what Popehat actually wants, I'm looking at it in the context of the concept of "competing rights" that he writes about.

>"People complaining about “cancel culture” frequently suggest that it chills speech. Perhaps. But so does a vague denunciation of other people’s speech."

My confusion stems from the fact that Popehat seems to want to have it both ways. On one hand, he entertains the idea that "cancel culture" has a chilling effect. It is not a stretch to say that "cancel culture" is a kind of "denunciation of other people's speech". But he's simultaneously criticizing people who want to end "cancel culture" because he sees them as also committing a "denunciation of other people’s speech".

If Popehat's main gripe is that the liberty of speech is being limited, both "cancel culture" and "anti-cancel culture" lead to speech being denounced and limited. With this contradiction in mind, I don't understand what Popehat hopes to achieve.

Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times

#16

Post by alphabettsy »

abnry wrote: post #12
Latty wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know what Popehat actually wants here. For people to stop calling it "cancel culture" whenever they face reasonable consequences for actions they take that harm others would be a good start. People not wanting to patronize or associate with you when you cause harm to people they care about is really not a bad thing, and it's not new either, and yet it is what gets called "cancel culture" by a lot of people.…

> reasonable consequences for actions they take that harm others This is what is at issue. What does "reasonable consequences" mean for "harm to others"? Sometimes the harm to others is disputed, as the harm is almost always considered emotional. Sometimes what is considered "reasonable consequences" is something as significant as loss of livelihood.

> Sometimes what is considered "reasonable consequences" is something as significant as loss of livelihood.

What if it’s reframed?

If I call my boss a fatty and they fire me that’s ok right? It’s just their feelings and I’m losing my income, but in that case it’s acceptable. Why?

Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times

#17

Post by RobertRoberts »

Latty wrote: post #5
BitwiseFool wrote: post #3

> "Our failure to have a serious discussion about defining “cancel culture” encourages this. When some people vaguely complain about “cancel culture” in a way that lends itself to promoting this constant partisanship, other people not unreasonably see it as partisan." Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does. Each one of us h…

> I don't know what Popehat actually wants here. For people to stop calling it "cancel culture" whenever they face reasonable consequences for actions they take that harm others would be a good start. People not wanting to patronize or associate with you when you cause harm to people they care about is really not a bad thing, and it's not new either, and yet it is what gets called "cancel culture" by a lot of people.…

But who decides what "actions they take that harm others" is?

If you look up if there are nazis in Ukraine army in US news, it will claim it's false, but international news sources say it's true.

Since nazis are the worst ever, don't you think it's important to get this right? And how can we tell if we can't have openly opposing sources that don't get cancelled?

Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times

#18

Post by Imnimo »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #15
Latty wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know what Popehat actually wants here. For people to stop calling it "cancel culture" whenever they face reasonable consequences for actions they take that harm others would be a good start. People not wanting to patronize or associate with you when you cause harm to people they care about is really not a bad thing, and it's not new either, and yet it is what gets called "cancel culture" by a lot of people.…

When I mention that I don't understand what Popehat actually wants, I'm looking at it in the context of the concept of "competing rights" that he writes about. >"People complaining about “cancel culture” frequently suggest that it chills speech. Perhaps. But so does a vague denunciation of other people’s speech." My confusion stems from the fact that Popehat seems to want to have it both ways. On one hand, he enterta…

>But he's simultaneously criticizing people who want to end "cancel culture" because he sees them as also committing a "denunciation of other people’s speech".

Right, but I think his criticism here is not that "they should not denounce other people's speech", it's that they are being hypocritical in their reasoning. He's arguing against the soundness of their denunciation, not arguing against their right to make it.

Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times

#19

Post by [deleted] »

Latty wrote: post #5
BitwiseFool wrote: post #3

> "Our failure to have a serious discussion about defining “cancel culture” encourages this. When some people vaguely complain about “cancel culture” in a way that lends itself to promoting this constant partisanship, other people not unreasonably see it as partisan." Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does. Each one of us h…

> I don't know what Popehat actually wants here. For people to stop calling it "cancel culture" whenever they face reasonable consequences for actions they take that harm others would be a good start. People not wanting to patronize or associate with you when you cause harm to people they care about is really not a bad thing, and it's not new either, and yet it is what gets called "cancel culture" by a lot of people.…

[deleted]

Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times

#20

Post by cowuser666 »

alphabettsy wrote: post #16
abnry wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reasonable consequences for actions they take that harm others This is what is at issue. What does "reasonable consequences" mean for "harm to others"? Sometimes the harm to others is disputed, as the harm is almost always considered emotional. Sometimes what is considered "reasonable consequences" is something as significant as loss of livelihood.

> Sometimes what is considered "reasonable consequences" is something as significant as loss of livelihood. What if it’s reframed? If I call my boss a fatty and they fire me that’s ok right? It’s just their feelings and I’m losing my income, but in that case it’s acceptable. Why?

That's exactly the point that was being made to you. The debate here is precisely what is reasonable, and what is harm.
Post reply on HN