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

511–520 of 633 posts

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

#511

Post by spupe »

tootie wrote: post #508
spupe wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A hit piece by the Huffington Post on a thread about cancel culture. Focused on Matt Taibbi's words from 23 years ago, for which he apologized several times. This is part of the problem, and I hope you can realize that. Every single person that has been in the public light for over 20 years will have some ugly events in their past, get over it.

That isn't true. Most public figures never have something like this in their past. Nor would you have ever forgiven an MSM publication for shouting that Russia would never invade on their front page for months. The NY Times is still living down Judith Miller after 20 years and she's been cancelled from journalism for what Taibbi has done.

Let's go with the false equivalence first. The MSM has not only been wrong about many things in the past, they have actively supported egregious crimes from the US administration. It's not only Judith Miller, they were all completely and utterly wrong about Iraq's WMDs, with disastrous consequences. Since you brought up Russia, the NYT and friends have consistently lied about the "Russiagate" events, including key elements of this narrative. Taibbi was one of the very few journalists with the courage to expose this for what it is. In the present war, yes, he was wrong that Russia would not go to war - an opinion shared by a majority of people at that time, by the way - and admitted so less than a week after the war started. These "mistakes" are not even remotely comparable.

As for your first statement, you will find that yes, every public figure has some dirt on them, if only because the definition of dirt keeps changing. For example, the comments made by Taibbi when he lived in Russia ~23 years ago~ are reflective of what the culture at the time found acceptable to say. Cancel culture is so obnoxious because it is used for hit jobs exactly like the one you are presenting here: find one or two events from someone's past and use that to close your ears to whatever they have to say at present, no matter how valid. Throw in some demands for them to be fired as well, because why not. Oh, and you have no way to atone for your supposed sins; even if you apologize you are tainted forever. It's time we fight back against this idiocy.

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

#512

Post by Blackstrat »

rayiner wrote: post #287
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…

Are you a "member of an unprivileged group?" If not, what exactly do you think life is like for us that we can't take a joke? Sticks and stones and whatnot: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rP0nqe... > Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent),…

The fundamental problem is that people have become conditioned to think of themselves as a member of a group first and an individual second. In many cases, the individual identity is completely obscured by the group identity. It doesn't matter if one is black, white, gay, straight, etc. It matters who they are as an individual, how they live their lives, care for their families, and so on. If one doesn't like a joke, a tv show, a book, a statue, or so on, ignore it and find something you do like. A Robert E Lee statue, for example, is not racist. It does not glorify slavery. It's history. The media and politicians stir up controversy and conflict for their own purposes, both in the States and elsewhere. Informed, confident individuals do not allow themselves to be played. The younger one is, the more accustomed they are to accepting group think whether it's about racial identity, sexual identity, and so forth. Older guys, such as myself, who grew up in a very blue collar world, and went on to college, and worked with people from all over the world, know that so much of what the media reports is simply false. Talk to and get to know people from other parts of the world and all of this "cancel culture" and group identity BS looks stupid and petty.

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

#513

Post by long_time_gone »

jimbokun wrote: post #433
long_time_gone wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't explicitly say it, can you at least describe in what ways it is "less free than, say, the 1990s?" If not, the comment loses value.

In the 90s the culturally most influential people tended to mock censors and championed being “politically incorrect”. Al and Tipper Gore were roundly mocked for the record rating system they championed. R rated movies were far more successful at the box office, with lots of questionable content by today’s standards. Pushing the boundaries of what was acceptable to say was considered cool. Today, the academic and cul…

I appreciate the followup.

> Al and Tipper Gore were roundly mocked for the record rating system they championed.

Which has a direct mirror in the mocking of Republicans who are currently trying to ban books and ideas (CRT) they don't like. A lot of your idea rests on the concept of "culturally influential people" pushing these actions. Again, I don't see the evidence of that, seems like a boogeyman.

> R rated movies were far more successful at the box office, with lots of questionable content by today’s standards.

Odd to compare 90s box office to today's box office given the impacts of COVID and streaming. We didn't have Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu, Paramount, HBO Max, Disney Plus, and more. You would need to add all the R-rated movies from those platforms to make a comparison. Either way, 4 of the 5 highest grossing R-rated movies (inflation adjusted) came out after 2000 [1].

> Today, the academic and cultural power brokers are the biggest champions of shutting down “objectionable” speech.

We definitely hear more complaining about it, today. I haven't seen evidence that it actually occurs more frequently. If anything, I see the opposite influence in the race to ban scary books and transgender people. Those ideas aren't coming from "cultural" leaders or "academics".

That said, it is far easier to be gay or transgendered today than the 90s. We also just had a President who described people as ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals.’ He also 'told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees …” [2] I don't think that would have been a good electoral strategy in the 90s, probably would have gotten him "cancelled."

[1] https://www.the-numbers.com/market/mpaa-rating/R-(US)

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/political-co...

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

#514

Post by ashtonkem »

akhmatova wrote: post #406
librish wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a fine argument that you completely avoided responding to.

We see things differently, I guess. I found it jejeune (and the tone behind it rather obnoxious).

Seems like a convenient way to not engage with the argument I made.

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

#515

Post by ashtonkem »

jimbokun wrote: post #433
long_time_gone wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't explicitly say it, can you at least describe in what ways it is "less free than, say, the 1990s?" If not, the comment loses value.

In the 90s the culturally most influential people tended to mock censors and championed being “politically incorrect”. Al and Tipper Gore were roundly mocked for the record rating system they championed. R rated movies were far more successful at the box office, with lots of questionable content by today’s standards. Pushing the boundaries of what was acceptable to say was considered cool. Today, the academic and cul…

> In the 90s the culturally most influential people tended to mock censors and championed being “politically incorrect”

There is a sizable industry still doing that exact same thing today. Instead of saying that they’re “politically incorrect” they say that they’ve been “cancelled”. It seems like this line of discussion is not only alive and well, it is quite lucrative too, which more than a tiny bit undermines the core premise of what being “cancelled” means.

> R rated movies were far more successful at the box office, with lots of questionable content by today’s standards.

As a sibling comment pointed out, this is factually incorrect. You also need to adjust for the fact that the internet exists, and various social and economic pressures are sending more R rated content directly to streaming.

Are there fewer R rated movies in theaters because of how sensitive we are, or are you just preferring to watch R rated content at home rather than in the theater?

> Pushing the boundaries of what was acceptable to say was considered cool.

Given the rise of the alt right and the dirtbag left, pushing boundaries is still very popular and lucrative.

> Today, the academic and cultural power brokers are the biggest champions of shutting down “objectionable” speech.

[Citation Needed]

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

#516

Post by tootie »

spupe wrote: post #511
tootie wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't true. Most public figures never have something like this in their past. Nor would you have ever forgiven an MSM publication for shouting that Russia would never invade on their front page for months. The NY Times is still living down Judith Miller after 20 years and she's been cancelled from journalism for what Taibbi has done.

Let's go with the false equivalence first. The MSM has not only been wrong about many things in the past, they have actively supported egregious crimes from the US administration. It's not only Judith Miller, they were all completely and utterly wrong about Iraq's WMDs, with disastrous consequences. Since you brought up Russia, the NYT and friends have consistently lied about the "Russiagate" events, including key el…

"The MSM" isn't really a single entity, but it's thousand and thousands of journalists. How many get cancelled for mistakes or behavior? Like 0.01%? And how often does a major outlet really report misinformation? Very rarely. Media attacking media gets big headlines, but in raw numbers it's really an insignificant number. And things like "Russiagate" are made up by detractors. No respectable journalists reported anything untrue. The facts of the Russian involvement in the 2016 and Trump's relationship to it were never embellished. The fact that there isn't a criminal case represents the gap in admissible evidence and prosecutorial will. The facts are well established. Taibbi's life's work would fill one weekday edition of the NY Times and yet he blew the biggest story of his lifetime. And his behavior 23 years ago was not ever acceptable. And that doesn't mean he is banished from living a life or personal freedom, but I would not trust a single word he writes.

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

#517

Post by slibhb »

tptacek wrote: post #411
slibhb wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't try to rebut the blog. And anyway, my comment doesn't hang on right to no-shunning/right to food being identical. My point was that the blog is strange because the author agrees with the spirit of the op-ed while taking pains to criticize it. I think this is clearly because he dislikes being on the same side as conservatives. If I was going to disagree with the blog, it would be over this strange idea that w…

He clearly doesn't agree with the spirit of the editorial (it's a staff editorial, not an op-ed). He thinks there are real free speech problems, but that the editorial (and the public sentiment it cites) terribly misconstrues them, succumbing to sloppy thinking in a way that not only works against their stated goal but actually further jeopardizes speech.

He agrees with the spirit of the op-ed:

> I believe that “cancel culture” exists — that is, I believe that some responses to speech are disproportionate and outside norms of decency, and I think the culture sometimes encourages such responses.

He's criticizing how the editorial talks about the problem. I agree with the spirit of the blog and the op-ed. I'm criticizing how the blog talks about the op-ed.

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

#518

Post by fundad »

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…

It’s always criticism about speech that parrots Republican talking points that rises to the level of cancel culture, not that people are fired for discussing worker power.

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

#519

Post by fundad »

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…

Cancel culture is as real as Capernick’s example

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

#520

Post by Kye »

lliamander wrote: post #238
Misdicorl wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 h…

I think this is another case of defintions breaking down.

There are no left-wing dominated cities in the US. There are liberal dominated cities, and liberals tend to support the same things as "conservatives" (big scare quotes), with the difference being target (sometimes). Painting Black Lives Matter on one street when no one asked for it while still supporting policies BLM is against does not make one leftist.

Plenty of checkmarked liberals have called for my extermination because I'm in a "red" state because they think everyone here is a moustache-twirling villain (right up until cable news decreed it was "purple" and thus virtuous). Meanwhile, the self-identifying conservative editor of the local paper supports a lot of policies that would be seen as leftist: BLM, trans rights, marriage equality. Liberals were firmly against these things until popular sentiment started to shift.

Post reply on HN