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

41–50 of 633 posts

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

#41

Post by alphabettsy »

cowuser666 wrote: post #20
alphabettsy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The comment I replied to seemed to trivialize emotional harm and suggest that loss of livelihood might be too severe. Did I read too much into it?

I was providing an actual scenario as a basis of comparison. I think concrete examples are more useful here.

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

#42

Post by elil17 »

davesque wrote: post #28

At the risk of outing myself as a skeptic of certain orthodoxies, I also found the Times op-ed in question to have a rather un-serious tone. However, I think there were different things I latched onto than the author of this critique. I didn't find the lack of clear distinction between the legal definition of free speech and the common definition to be particularly problematic. As the author mentions, a lot of people…

>For the supposed paper of record, I found the choice to use the decidedly contemptuous language to refer to the right wing (that I italicized above) very telling.

I genuinely don't know how else they could describe what's going on. Braying means speaking loudly and harshly - an accurate description of how many public figures on the right discuss cancel culture. It's colorful language, sure, but it's an op-ed, which mean's its someone's opinion.

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

#43

Post by commandlinefan »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #9

Cancel culture happens because it works, and it not even be true. Until businesses, universities, and institutions say no to the digital mob, it will continue.

Cancel culture isn't particularly new, either - the name is, but it was going on when I was a kid. The only difference was that the same people who are cheering it on now (like, I'm sure, Popehat) are the same ones who were raging against it when it was the religious right doing it.

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

#44

Post by davesque »

elil17 wrote: post #42
davesque wrote: post #28

At the risk of outing myself as a skeptic of certain orthodoxies, I also found the Times op-ed in question to have a rather un-serious tone. However, I think there were different things I latched onto than the author of this critique. I didn't find the lack of clear distinction between the legal definition of free speech and the common definition to be particularly problematic. As the author mentions, a lot of people…

>For the supposed paper of record, I found the choice to use the decidedly contemptuous language to refer to the right wing (that I italicized above) very telling. I genuinely don't know how else they could describe what's going on. Braying means speaking loudly and harshly - an accurate description of how many public figures on the right discuss cancel culture. It's colorful language, sure, but it's an op-ed, which…

I don't disagree that it is an accurate (and somewhat inflammatory) description of how figures on the right discuss cancel culture. What I'm saying is that it is an ineffective means of changing anyone's mind that they must care about changing.

As participants in the culture war often do, they claim to want peace while also wanting victory.

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

#45

Post by legitster »

> Our failure to have a serious discussion about defining “cancel culture” encourages this.

Can we please just define it so we can move on as a society? I'm equally tired of this game where snarky writers try to pretend it doesn't exist. The first amendment doesn't protect against secret blacklists or mobs but we can still agree they are "bad things" and could agree on at least some new set of common courtesy.

All sorts of examples come to mind of unfair public shaming spectacles against largely undeserving targets:

John Roderick losing all sorts of shows and bookings for the "bean dad" episode: https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/viral/bean-dad-john-rode...

"So You've Been Publicly Shamed" is full of examples. Here's an excerpt where the offender and the offendee where BOTH fired in retributions: https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/news/a7933/exclusive-extr...

A recounting of a former blogger who ended up on a secret industry blacklist: https://miketunison.substack.com/p/fun-with-drew-magary

And it's not just a far off issue, this kind of stuff is happening in my area! To normal people! https://pdx.eater.com/2017/5/22/15677760/portland-kooks-burr...

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

#46

Post by kritiko »

noduerme wrote: post #21
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.…

As you point out, while boycotting someone based on your perception of their opinion is not new , the modality of mass mob boycotts of individuals over things potentially taken out of context is entirely new, and that's exactly what "cancel culture" refers to. The underlying mechanism of Twitter is what gave birth to the term, regardless of whether it's used by haters to justify hate speech. One other thing that's ne…

>One other thing that's new, in America, is the idea that speech is less important than people's feelings. Lenny Bruce was convicted of obscenity less than 60 years ago. The civil liberties around speech went through a series of challenges and expansions very recently. The ACLU used to defend nazis. Now they prefer not to, to the chagrin or dismay of more traditional civil libertarians.

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

#47

Post by anamax »

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?

The case we're talking about is I accuse you of calling me a fatty and get a bunch of people to tell your employer that they'll boycott, costing a bunch of people their income, people who didn't do anything, unless they fire you.

Note that I said "accuse". Maybe you called me a fatty, maybe you didn't.

Note that "get" is too strong. There appear to be people waiting for an excuse to go after "your employer" for pretty much any value of "your employer". I may not even be bothered - someone else may do the "get" even if all I do is mention that you called me fatty/thought that you thought of me as a fatty without any intent that someone do something.

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

#48

Post by Misdicorl »

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…

> Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does.

Certainly it leads to more clarity. Two parties talking "past" each other is one of the most common sources of disagreement in my experience. Of course it isn't a panacea and there will still be disagreement on when the definition is being used correctly, and bad actors, and .... But it is an excellent (and I would argue necessary) starting point for any meaningful discussion.

> Additionally, I think Popehat is dead wrong here:.... I don't know what Popehat actually wants here

The headings of the sections work pretty neatly for me to distill this down (skipping the intro).

1) (Why) Working Towards A Definition Is Important -> dont just handwave

2) Propaganda Drives Perception -> rethink what you think cancel culture is

3) Everybody’s Rights Matter -> The person being cancelled may have been out of bounds and trying to cancel someone else too. Context is important

4) We Need Action Items -> stop these stupid articles that simply clutch pearls and propose something anything that can actually be considered

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

#49

Post by tptacek »

noduerme wrote: post #21
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.…

As you point out, while boycotting someone based on your perception of their opinion is not new , the modality of mass mob boycotts of individuals over things potentially taken out of context is entirely new, and that's exactly what "cancel culture" refers to. The underlying mechanism of Twitter is what gave birth to the term, regardless of whether it's used by haters to justify hate speech. One other thing that's ne…

I think you're making White's point for him. You're implying that free speech should be at least as important as other people's feelings. He agrees. Which is why appeals for a new norm of shutting up critics is so problematic. This is what he's talking about with his "First Speaker Problem" thing: the "free speech" you're alluding to is virtually always a response to someone else's speech. How do you coherently isolate the speech that must be protected --- the supposed "first speaker" --- from the speech that shouldn't (critics of that first speaker)?

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

#50

Post by Terry_Roll »

commandlinefan wrote: post #29
noduerme wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you point out, while boycotting someone based on your perception of their opinion is not new , the modality of mass mob boycotts of individuals over things potentially taken out of context is entirely new, and that's exactly what "cancel culture" refers to. The underlying mechanism of Twitter is what gave birth to the term, regardless of whether it's used by haters to justify hate speech. One other thing that's ne…

> the modality of mass mob boycotts I was watching the news this morning and they were talking about the latest company that's boycotting Russia in response to the social media storm. It occurred to me that governments are becoming increasingly irrelevant. They don't have to impose sanctions (and their own rules make it difficult to do so) - the Twitter mob is deciding who to banish. It's a form of democracy, I guess…

> It occurred to me that governments are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

I've been thinking this for quite a few years now.

>the Twitter mob is deciding who to banish. It's a form of democracy, I guess - but one without any checks or balances or regulations.

Or swarms of bots shaping public opinion run by just a few people? As long as Govt's allow encryption, over the telecoms networks in their countries, the sooner govts become irrelevant.

Post reply on HN