Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times • Hacker News Board

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

#451

Post by joshuamorton » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 3:08 AM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #444

joshuamorton wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that generally a conservative opinion though, that taxation is theft? Like the reason I don't object to taxes (in general) is because I think I get value from them, even in the redistribution sense. If someone proposed to raise taxes and give all the proceeds to Jeff Bezos, I would consider that a proposal to steal from me.

> Isn't that generally a conservative opinion though, that taxation is theft? Yes, but you don't see conservatives fire outspoken democrats for thievery, or give them the ultimatum that either they acknowledge that taxation is theft or get fired. If conservatives did that then I would tell them to stop, say that what they are doing is against free speech ideals and if abuse got too bad I'd advocate for laws against i…

Why? That's entirely their right to do.

It would be deeply unpopular and ineffective, but I don't see why it should be illegal.

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

#452

Post by joshuamorton » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 3:09 AM UTC

jimbokun wrote: post #441

joshuamorton wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you draw a distinction between writing an NYT op-ed to, say, support same-sex marriage, voting for a candidate who supports same sex marriage, and signing a bill to allow same-sex marriage? In every case you're "just" writing something down. When does one cross the line from "just" sharing an opinion, to advocacy for that opinion to political action on favor of a policy? Phrased differently, if someone advocat…

Then debate them, run against them or campaign for politicians that will prevent or change those policies. Which is exactly how same sex marriage came to have such broad support, by the way. Andrew Sullivan in particular tirelessly made the case for same sex marriage, including to exactly the kind of people you describe, and changed many minds.

Sure I can do all of those things, but you didn't address my question. If I think someone will harm me, I can do all of those things, but why not also do more?

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

#453

Post by rayiner » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 3:10 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #422

rayiner wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Right-wing cancel culture” is a well understood, world-wide phenomenon. To use the example in your other post, people try to blockade abortion clinics because certain religious people understand those clinics to be engaged in mass murder. Or to use another example people freak out over cartoons of Mohammad because it’s a grave offense in Islam. That is what it is. I talk about left-wing cancel culture because it’s a…

Sure. But all we're establishing here is that everybody is hostile to ideological pluralism. That shouldn't surprise us. We live in a hyperpolarized society (and that's not the fault of "cancel culture", but rather preceded it by over 50 years, surviving multiple zeitgeist shifts in the interim, from the defeated cynicism of the post-Nixon 70s through the Reagan years and the post-9/11 culture of nationalism that got…

> Sure. But all we're establishing here is that everybody is hostile to ideological pluralism.

But I don’t see why liberals (broadly defined) need to be so ideological or hostile. I can understand why evangelical Christians are the way they are. But liberals, especially highly educated ones, should be able to look at the facts and see what is and what isn’t.

> So where does that leave us? Is your point that it's disappointing to you that the left is now as responsible for ideological hostility as the right? Because the left has always been just as hostile as the right.

I’m disappointed that liberal elites (and I don’t mean that pejoratively—I include myself in that class) aren’t being the grownups and taking care of stability and our institutions. I’m not surprised that zealous young college students are embracing radical ideas. I’m surprised that university administrators and deans are egging them on.

I don’t think it was always like this. There was an interregnum between when conservatives controlled the institutions and the present when things were more… liberal. Even among the liberal elite there were libertarian and populist impulses, which seem to have been driven away, leaving a strident Puritanism.

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

#454

Post by Jensson » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 3:15 AM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #451

Jensson wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't that generally a conservative opinion though, that taxation is theft? Yes, but you don't see conservatives fire outspoken democrats for thievery, or give them the ultimatum that either they acknowledge that taxation is theft or get fired. If conservatives did that then I would tell them to stop, say that what they are doing is against free speech ideals and if abuse got too bad I'd advocate for laws against i…

Why? That's entirely their right to do. It would be deeply unpopular and ineffective, but I don't see why it should be illegal.

> while the views that usually result in people being fired are fringe and, in a word, vile

That is not true, a large majority don't agree with many radical lefts views, but would still get fired if they voiced those opinions publicly.

For example, should trans people compete in sports of their chosen gender? Almost two thirds thinks that they shouldn't, but saying that will get you labelled anti-trans and fired from many jobs, even though you might support trans-rights completely in every other regard.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/350174/mixed-views-among-americ...

> It would be deeply unpopular and ineffective, but I don't see why it should be illegal.

It would be extremely effective as most business owners are right wing. They just don't do it because they don't care what their workers thinks, they care more about profits. But if they banded together and made this policy at every right wing owned business you would see huge consequences, as the workers can't really choose to go somewhere else.

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

#455

Post by HWR_14 » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 3:15 AM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #292

otterley wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We want to live in a culture where a joke on the internet doesn't lead to a struggle session at work. Everyone wants to do that, until they find themselves the target of a joke while struggling to have a good career, live in a nice place, and raise a family as a member of an unprivileged group with a lot of adverse baggage to overcome. Not everyone thinks such jokes are funny, and they have just as much a right to…

Do you have to be part of an unprivileged group to find a joke offensive and deserving of a severe reaction? And does this only apply in America? Like if I go to Germany and they make fun of Americans for being fat I can get really mad and shame them and stuff right? ———- Though in my own personal experience of being the butt of many jokes, I find it’s easiest to just disarm them by laughing and then trying to take t…

> in my own personal experience of being the butt of many jokes, I find it’s easiest to just disarm them by laughing and then trying to take the person out for a beer. Then we can laugh at my expense together

It sounds like the jokes people are making at your expense are because of a single action that they are mocking, possibly as a callback to a trait you have. Do you see how it would be different was a joke about something intrinsic and permanent that you've been hearing your whole life? And that instead of being good natured, it was being told by someone who would never share a beer with you?

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

#456

Post by joshuamorton » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 3:16 AM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #454

joshuamorton wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? That's entirely their right to do. It would be deeply unpopular and ineffective, but I don't see why it should be illegal.

> while the views that usually result in people being fired are fringe and, in a word, vile That is not true, a large majority don't agree with many radical lefts views, but would still get fired if they voiced those opinions publicly. For example, should trans people compete in sports of their chosen gender? Almost two thirds thinks that they shouldn't, but saying that will get you labelled anti-trans and fired from…

What jobs would that get you fired from? Name one.

(this is precisely the issue with "cancel culture" discourse that Popehat identifies: there's two phenomena, one of people being removed from their jobs or facing actual life consequences. This is thankfully usually rare, and usually applies only to relatively powerful people who say relatively awful things[0]. There's also a second phenomena of people receiving any sort of criticism for a controversial statement, and panic-mongers conflate the two, to suggest that any criticism is an attempt to silence you or ruin your life. That's simply not the case. Yeah, you'll get criticized online for saying trans-women shouldn't compete in women's sports. You'll probably also be criticized for the opposite view. You're not going to get fired for either, unless you're explicitly making an issue out of it in your workplace, and then the issue isn't the particular view, it's being disruptive).

[0]: And to preempt this, yes I know it sometimes results in normal people losing their jobs. This is unusual, even among the relatively rare aspect of people losing their livelyhood.

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

#457

Post by refurb » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 3:19 AM UTC

akhmatova wrote: post #368

refurb wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the old days you would never hear the President of the US repeating obviously fabricated insane conspiracy theories. You must be a youngster because yeah, that did happened in the old days.

Scale matters. And in terms of sheer magnitude of insanity and frequency of its emission -- no one who has held that office can hold a candle to number 45.

I would seriously disagree with that statement.

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

#458

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 3:24 AM UTC

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

#459

Post by jakelazaroff » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 3:25 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #422

rayiner wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Right-wing cancel culture” is a well understood, world-wide phenomenon. To use the example in your other post, people try to blockade abortion clinics because certain religious people understand those clinics to be engaged in mass murder. Or to use another example people freak out over cartoons of Mohammad because it’s a grave offense in Islam. That is what it is. I talk about left-wing cancel culture because it’s a…

Sure. But all we're establishing here is that everybody is hostile to ideological pluralism. That shouldn't surprise us. We live in a hyperpolarized society (and that's not the fault of "cancel culture", but rather preceded it by over 50 years, surviving multiple zeitgeist shifts in the interim, from the defeated cynicism of the post-Nixon 70s through the Reagan years and the post-9/11 culture of nationalism that got…

One of the frustrating things about this discussion is the lack of a coherent definition of what "canceling" actually means. Bill Maher's cancellation quickly resulted in his own HBO show that he's hosted for almost 20 years. Or, to pick a more contemporary example, Dave Chapelle talks about being canceled from sold-out arena stages. It seems like everyone wants the "cool" factor of being a controversial figure without generating any actual controversy.

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

#460

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 3:29 AM UTC

civilized wrote: post #356

tptacek wrote: post #180

The comments on this thread seem to be quite wildly missing White's point. Many of the arguments taking place here seem premised on the idea that Ken White has attempted to solve, once and for all, the "cancel culture" problem --- or somehow write a dispositive argument that "cancel culture" isn't real. He's not doing any of these things. He's responding to a specific NYT staff editorial. White agrees with many of yo…

I like the thrust of your and Ken's post overall, but I think this misses the mark: > To be free of shame or shunning is to be free of other people's speech. If you're saying something provocative, you are almost certainly responding in a sense to something someone else said; if you think you have the right to speak without shame or shunning, so does the person you're effectively responding to. While it's true that a…

[deleted]