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

61–70 of 633 posts

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

#61

Post by _jal »

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…

He's pointing out that many (not all) people complaining are asking for criticism - other peoples' speech - to be shut down.

There are a few sincere people out there. But most whining about cancel culture are just asking to be free from criticism. Sometimes it is blatantly obvious [1], more frequently layered with complaints about legitimately out of line acts and misdirects.

The answer to bad speech is more speech. End of story.

[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/palin-criticism-threatens_n_1...

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

#62

Post by galimaufry »

whatshisface wrote: post #4

There has to be some kind of term for making your case against the absolute least sympathetic adversary ("We're allowed to boycott giant corporations right?") while using the same word that describes the absolute most sympathetic cases ("Are all companies allowed to get together and jointly refuse to sell food to farm animal rights activists?")

I've heard it called a "non-central example". That has a negative connotation though, I wish there was a more neutral term. The statement "all natural numbers are greater than 1" is false, and it's not helpful to object that 0 and 1 are noncentral examples.

(It's not a motte-and-bailey, that's about a particular sort of shifting goalposts)

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

#63

Post by BitwiseFool »

tptacek wrote: post #7
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…

Without the definition, White says, the appeal to an "end cancel culture norm" is, overtly, a call to broadly restrict people's speech. If you dismiss the demand for clarity, you can't coherently rebut his assessment of what "end cancel culture" means.

>"If you dismiss the demand for clarity, you can't coherently rebut his assessment of what "end cancel culture" means."

I'm dismissing his standard of what counts as "clarity" because I sense he's expecting a lawyerly definition based on something akin to precedent and case law. In other words, he's seeking past examples of alleged "cancel culture" and trying to define what made each event count as, or not count as, "cancel culture". And then from that formulate a rigid definition. I believe such a rigid definition is flawed because it is reactionary, because vernacular consensus is not formed this way, and because the definition can easily be skirted around.

It would be like me demanding clarity on what makes something "cool".

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

#64

Post by amriksohata »

The mainstream media is getting choked with pressure from social media and alternate news sources. I have seen a pattern across many of the major outlets who used to have more conservative approach to reporting, are now becoming more and more daring and bombastic with headlines for clicks and attention

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

#65

Post by alphabettsy »

liquid_bluing wrote: post #56
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?

I think it's broadly considered acceptable because insulting your boss is an aggresive behavior directed at a colleague. Simply stating an opinion is not.

Does it matter at all what the opinion is?

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

#66

Post by pessimizer »

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.

That's the good thing about cancel culture: it works. The bad thing is that anything that works eventually goes corporate.

> Until businesses, universities, and institutions say no to the digital mob, it will continue.

You can wait on that, but I prefer labor laws.

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

#67

Post by Latty »

pessimizer wrote: post #52
ashtonkem wrote: post #34

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. … One other thing that's new, in America, is the idea that speech is less important than people's feelings. They used to kill people for advocating for integration and civil rights. Actual mobs used to assemble…

They used to imprison people for sending information about birth control through the mail. I don't know what planet the "it wasn't like this in the good old days" people live on. The most common phrase quoted by people to describe a hypothetical rational limit on speech[*] was cribbed from a case that found it was ok to imprison people for passing out pamphlets against WWI. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fi…

> I don't know what planet the "it wasn't like this in the good old days" people live on.

Obviously not always, but often because you are viewing it through the a different lens: there is an unspoken "for people like me" missing from the end of their statement.

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

#68

Post by hraedon »

Vaslo wrote: post #53
hraedon wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty tendentious view of both Popehat's expressed opinion and the NYTime's article. Popehat is pretty clearly against what he defines as "cancel culture," and the NYTimes article is primarily about journalists and elite opinion writers not liking backtalk from their readers.

Seems he is against it until conservatives are victims of it. Then suddenly it’s a good thing. You have a right to not patronize someone who you disagree with. Just like I think there will be a backlash against those who call for the pitchforks - they’ll find people peacefully protesting them outside of the their workplaces, places they frequent, outside their homes. Just another ACLU shill in this article.

One of his cited examples of actual "cancel culture" is the shouting down of Ilya Shapiro, an act he characterizes as "fascist and contemptible," and two others are either cancelings within social justice spaces or involve circular firing squads on the left. To me, this is maybe an indication that he is operating on principle more than politics.

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

#69

Post by pessimizer »

commandlinefan wrote: post #43
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.

> when it was the religious right doing it.

The religious right continues to do it. They've somehow been grandfathered in while we gather lynch mobs to attack pink-haired community college liberal arts professors.

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

#70

Post by egberts1 »

I got blocked by Sacramento Bee (a California newspaper) Editorial from their Facebook page.

Pretty sure that they didn’t like the different facts that I have pointed out over several different times as rebuttal to their dated opinions … with using each of their own website pages as counter-citations.

But hey, Editorial folks reserve the rights to cancel me for their own idiocy of their own makings.

It’s just the slippery narratives of their overlords that they are trying to propagate (or is it propagandizing).

That to me is “cancel culture”.

Post reply on HN