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

231–240 of 633 posts

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

#231

Post by akerl_ »

zdragnar wrote: post #226
TameAntelope wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we should lose sight of just how batshit insane the NYT editorial was. We can continue to talk about Cancel Culture, but the opening assertion of the editorial was that we have a right to, "...speak [our] minds and voice [our] opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned." That's gobsmackingly wrong. It's the kind of sentence that, to me at least, grinds my mental gears to a halt. I just..…

It's not too far off. Any behavior which constitutes assault or harassment is not protected by the first amendment. Shaming and shunning can easily be considered harassment in the right context, though actually proving it in a court of law gets much trickier.

Harassment is a legal concept. In what context are we considering “shaming and shunning” to be harassment in if not the context of the court of law?

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

#232

Post by [deleted] »

zdragnar wrote: post #226
TameAntelope wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we should lose sight of just how batshit insane the NYT editorial was. We can continue to talk about Cancel Culture, but the opening assertion of the editorial was that we have a right to, "...speak [our] minds and voice [our] opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned." That's gobsmackingly wrong. It's the kind of sentence that, to me at least, grinds my mental gears to a halt. I just..…

It's not too far off. Any behavior which constitutes assault or harassment is not protected by the first amendment. Shaming and shunning can easily be considered harassment in the right context, though actually proving it in a court of law gets much trickier.

[deleted]

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

#233

Post by Spinnaker_ »

tootie wrote: post #204
olivermarks wrote: post #8

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/worlds-dullest-editorial-launc... Matt Taibbi's great post on this same topic. 'This Times editorial is watered down almost to the level of a public service announcement written for the Cartoon Network, or maybe a fortune cookie (“Free speech is a process, not a destination. Winning numbers 4, 9, 11, 32, 46…”). It made the Harper’s letter read like a bin Laden fatwa, but it’s somehow aro…

Taibbi has mostly torpedoed his credibility with Russian apoligism. Him and Glenn Greenwald.

He immediately and thoroughly owned up to his mistakes regarding Russia. His credibility has increased in my mind.

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

#234

Post by AnimalMuppet »

krapp wrote: post #158
Gimpei wrote: post #129

The problem with the debate on "cancel culture" is a lack of specificity. The fact is that there are certain occasions where "canceling" seems fine, and others, where it does not. And I think a problem with the progressive argument is the refusal to acknowledge that there can ever be any excesses. For example, there is the case of Dorian Abbot, who was disinvited from an MIT lecture after he wrote an op-ed criticizin…

>The problem with the debate on "cancel culture" is a lack of specificity. The fact is that there are certain occasions where "canceling" seems fine, and others, where it does not. And I think a problem with the progressive argument is the refusal to acknowledge that there can ever be any excesses. Actually, many progressives do acknowledge that. Plenty of people on the left feel that cancel culture sometimes goes to…

When was the last time that someone genuinely powerful was successfully cancelled?

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

#235

Post by danShumway »

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.

It's extremely hard for me to imagine how anyone who's read or listened to a lot of Ken's commentary could walk away thinking that he was suddenly in favor of 18 USC 1001 just because of the existence of the Trump administration. He regularly criticizes the statute.

I don't know, I really just don't see it.

----

Also, quick sidenote on the heckler's veto:

> We talked about chilling effects and heckler's vetoes, but now they're well-deserved social sanctions?

https://nitter.42l.fr/Popehat/status/1504505701401448467#m

The heckler's veto isn't really the right term to use when talking about cancel culture or shouting down speakers. The heckler's veto is more about the government shutting down speech under the assumption that it might cause a riot or disruption in the future.

But for whatever it's worth, Ken also regularly criticizes shouting down speakers in public forums. I really just don't see this change in his opinion that you're talking about.

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

#236

Post by sendfoods »

tootie wrote: post #204
olivermarks wrote: post #8

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/worlds-dullest-editorial-launc... Matt Taibbi's great post on this same topic. 'This Times editorial is watered down almost to the level of a public service announcement written for the Cartoon Network, or maybe a fortune cookie (“Free speech is a process, not a destination. Winning numbers 4, 9, 11, 32, 46…”). It made the Harper’s letter read like a bin Laden fatwa, but it’s somehow aro…

Taibbi has mostly torpedoed his credibility with Russian apoligism. Him and Glenn Greenwald.

Could you provide some context? I have not been following them closely lately, but am familiar with their work and generally find them very respectable journalists.

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

#237

Post by galaxyLogic »

cgrealy wrote: post #183
noduerme wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one thing that's remained constant from times when civil rights activists were imprisoned for "offending" people to now when right wingers are canceled for offending people seems to be that the bulk of the population is incapable of, or unwilling to, set the principle of speech over their own feelings about that speech. I think it's because most people just can't imagine themselves being on the wrong end of a cen…

> narrowing of speech will come for those who believe themselves immune. True, but on other hand, history has shown us the Paradox of Tolerance. "Liberals" have learned this lesson. When I was growing up, people who I would consider socially liberal generally supported the "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" position. These days, the same people are less confident. I'm one of them. I…

Of course we don't have to defend Nazis but we can defend free speech. We should attack Nazis' inhumane poisonous speech and misinformation. And especially we shouldn't amplify it. Twitter should not amplify the spread of fascist ideology in the name of "fairness". They should ban it. People still have their freedom of speech but Twitter has the right to not propagate hate and lies.

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

#238

Post by lliamander »

Misdicorl wrote: post #196
lliamander wrote: post #181

I think his notion of "disproportionate response to to speech" is a good start, but is too generic to help us understand why this has become an issue of discussion over the past decade. When I think of cancel culture, my primary thought is of private individuals facing meaningful harms (mainly economic) as a result of public outcry over the individuals (perfectly legal) speech or actions that signal the individual is…

> The Left has generally been far more likely to cancel people than the reverse. There are a number of possible causes (people on the left are more politically active, will be amplified by a left -leaning media industry, etc) I think this is more neatly described by the right having more mainstream and surreptitious avenues of "cancelling" people they don't like. Gang lists, credit scores, police intimidation/brutali…

That grab-bag of issues suggests you have a confused notion of what constitutes "the right". For instance, how is police brutality a example of "right-wing cancel culture" when some of our most salient examples occurred in left-wing dominated cities? Not everything you disagree with is a political weapon used by your enemies.

I will concede (though you didn't make this point explicitly) that the religious right has historically had a fair bit of social power that might be described as cancel culture, but that power has arguably been gone since before cancel culture as I described it became a thing.

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

#239

Post by tootie »

Spinnaker_ wrote: post #233
tootie wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taibbi has mostly torpedoed his credibility with Russian apoligism. Him and Glenn Greenwald.

He immediately and thoroughly owned up to his mistakes regarding Russia. His credibility has increased in my mind.

He's still posting Ukrainian Nazi tweets. He owned up to the thing he was incontrovertibly wrong about but doesn't seem to be rethinking his approach.

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

#240

Post by tptacek »

akvadrako wrote: post #230
tptacek wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then we've clearly flourished throughout the 20th century in spit of it and not because of it.

You are saying we shouldn't be open? That will surely lead to never ending conflict.

I can't even figure out how to connect your response to what I wrote, so I can't possibly do any good by trying to reply to it.
Post reply on HN