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

101–110 of 633 posts

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

#101

Post by tptacek »

abnry wrote: post #84
tptacek wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a more specific and coherent definition of cancel culture, but it's certainly not the current consensus definition: many "cancel culture" debates --- probably most of them --- are about speech or opinions that the individual stands resolutely behind. And, of course, "for offenses that are minor in comparison" or "speculative" is almost always subjective; it just shifts the debate to a different set of words, b…

> And, of course, "for offenses that are minor in comparison" or "speculative" is almost always subjective. They really aren't. I used the word "historically" for this reason. Years ago, for example, people would openly espouse directly racist views. Today, you can get fired for using a slur in the "mention" category, rather than in the "use" category. And speculative inference isn't anything more than saying, "this…

You can get fired for having the wrong hairstyle --- that is a thing that in fact happens more often than firings because of cancel mobs. So we're not really saying much yet. Similarly, you can use the logic in your second paragraph to insulate any kind of speech at all from approbation; if you take what you're saying to its clear conclusion, what you're really saying is that it's never OK to boycott anything over speech. That's far beyond what even the most vigorous anti-cancel-culture advocates are saying.

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

#102

Post by iosono88 »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #58
anamax wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prett…

Let's not move the goalposts. If you hurt your boss's feelings, should you lose your livelihood?

No post body was provided.

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

#103

Post by tptacek »

jimbokun wrote: post #76
tptacek wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 isola…

It's a norm not a law. Be open to a broad array of viewpoints and opinions, as a general rule. It makes you a better human being.

It's an aspirational norm, but it's nobody's practiced norm; virtually everybody has lines they draw. So what does it tell us that we can aspire to having that norm? I'd argue: not much.

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

#104

Post by dataangel »

ashtonkem wrote: post #34
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…

> 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…

I'm not convinced that history is just repeating itself. There does seem to be something qualitatively different about the possibility that nowadays a non-celebrity can spout an offensive joke or political take and have it be much more likely to be recorded and broadcast to the whole world with permanent consequences for them everywhere they go. Bad decisions are far more likely nowadays to be permanently recorded, and moving over to the next town, state etc is no longer enough to escape your history. There were implicit safeguards before in that most people were much less likely to have a wide audience that would remember what they said. It was much easier to change your mind about something and then pretend it was your opinion the entire time and save face. There are organizations with pet issues that dedicate themselves to recording offensive social media posts by college students and then making profile pages for each student on their site to publicly shame them. In the past these kids could graduate and then change their mind years later and no one would be the wiser as long as they never became celebrities or politicians.

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

#105

Post by gambler »

tptacek wrote: post #49
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…

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 isola…

A) Criticizing an idea so that others understand how it is flawed.

B) "Criticizing" an idea to get it expunged from various media to manipulate what ideas people are exposed to.

If you even pretend that there is no difference between A and B, you're not worth intellectually engaging with.

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

#106

Post by [deleted] »

amriksohata wrote: post #64

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

[deleted]

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

#107

Post by tines »

galimaufry wrote: post #62
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)

Nitpick, I don't think 0 is a natural number

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

#108

Post by tptacek »

Natsu wrote: post #85
tptacek wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 isola…

It's funny to see all the shifts on this. 18 USC 1001 was "chickensh-t" that they wouldn't pull back in his day to Ken... at least until it wasn't. We talked about chilling effects and heckler's vetoes, but now they're well-deserved social sanctions? I've been reading him for probably a decade now, so it's hard not to notice how things change whenever the shoe is on the other foot.

I think White has been pretty consistent about 18 USC 1001 being chickenshit, even when it applied to Trump employees. It's important to distinguish between normative and positive arguments; whenever White talks about 18 USC 1001, he's making positive claims. If you're, for instance, talking about the All The Presidents lawyers podcast, he was there to handicap what was actually going to happen in cases against the Trump administration. He wasn't running the prosecution.

And, when he does, he virtually always points out how that statute is more often used to harass people we find sympathetic, even when it's being aimed at e.g. Trump's former lawyer.

(18 USC 1001 for non-Pope-Heads is the statute that criminalizes lying to the FBI).

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

#109

Post by jakelazaroff »

gambler wrote: post #105
tptacek wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 isola…

A) Criticizing an idea so that others understand how it is flawed. B) "Criticizing" an idea to get it expunged from various media to manipulate what ideas people are exposed to. If you even pretend that there is no difference between A and B, you're not worth intellectually engaging with.

Sure, but the point here is that the NYT is engaging in B.

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

#110

Post by ameminator »

pessimizer wrote: post #69
commandlinefan wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If only the people who condemned the religious right would also condemn the fanatic left, I'm sure the world would be a more consistent place.
Post reply on HN