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

561–570 of 633 posts

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

#561

Post by smaryjerry »

otterley wrote: post #542
smaryjerry wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

NFL teams have continued to let plenty of players who have suffered injuries and had less-than-stellar records continue to play. If you can demonstrate that there's a clear pattern of players with Kaepernick's on-the-field record being treated similarly, then your argument holds some water; but otherwise, it's just a convenient pretext.

Comparisons to other players are just silly, yes it has happened before but that doesn’t mean anything when it comes down to an individual. I’m not sure what else is needed to explain what makes a poor QB other than losing records in both recent and lifetime stats, injuries, and failure under pressure? If that isn’t a pattern showing lack of skill I don’t know what is. He is also aging as a scrambling QB, everyone knows speed diminishes rapidly with age and when this weapon is only getting worse, and your other weapon, your arm, was injured, then there isn’t much left. He has been scouted by tens and none decided to pick him up, this in itself should be primary evidence that he was give a chance and failed.

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

#562

Post by Forgeties79 »

nec4b wrote: post #482
otterley wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That unfairly burdens the target of the joke. And if you take pains not to offend your work colleagues, then the "don't be offended unnecessarily" half is far less likely to be an issue.

Quoted post unavailable.

Holy shoehorn, batman.

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

#563

Post by smaryjerry »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #544
smaryjerry wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I forgot "almost." He's been to the superbowl. He was a superbowl quarterback. As for lies, did you read the article I linked? A former NFL exec literally admits to it.

Several teams have scouted him and given him a chance, are you saying they went through all that effort just to save face?

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

#564

Post by Forgeties79 »

krageon wrote: post #532
otterley wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then how do millions of people manage to accomplish this every single day ? Also, statements like this come across as a justification for not even trying. I hope that's not what you intend.

They accomplish it because the folks around them are normal human beings that don't completely fly off the handle when something they don't like is said by someone else. You talk about it, rib back or leave. It's not rocket science.

I just don't know how you can say things like this when professional environments like Activision-Blizzard exist. You act like it's either "everything we say can be said without any social consequence" or "everyone is offended by everything all the time," when the reality is it's a sliding scale based on context.

I have a higher tolerance for things with a small group of friends than I do in the workplace. I will talk about religion, politics, get heated/passionate, etc. in a friend-context. I do NOT want that at work, and I think I am entitled to a workplace where people have to self-censor a bit in an effort to keep the peace. I do it every day around conservatives who get their feathers ruffled if I say something bad about the GOP/Trump, what makes them so special that they can talk about whatever they want whenever they want and expect NO social repercussions?

It's a one-way street with people who behave like that, we all know it. I guarantee you I can offend and get a bad reaction out of anyone who says "anything goes."

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

#565

Post by jimbokun »

long_time_gone wrote: post #513
jimbokun wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The link to R rated movie statistics shows a steady drop in marketshare, excluding a weird blip in 2020. Probably an artifact of Covid?

Trump is the chief catalyst of Cancel Culture, in my opinion. His violation of every norm of decency and blatant cruelty created a backlash and a desire for retaliation for anyone seen to be in the same camp as Trump.

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

#566

Post by bduerst »

acdha wrote: post #535
smaryjerry wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Texas law was not supported by mainstream conservatives, it was done by Christians and the federal law is not under threat, this yet another thing meant rile people up to earn votes for a specific party. There is a zero percentage chance the Supreme Court re-hears the case on abortion.

> The Texas law was not supported by mainstream conservatives This is a classic No True Scotsman argument: that law was enacted by Texas Republicans and has been protected by the Republicans at various levels of federal court up to the Supreme Court, and copies of that law are being enacted by Republicans in other states. If you want us to believe that’s not aligned with mainstream conservatism, show that the larger…

Yeah, it's insane watching this degree of confirmation bias unfold real time just reading this thread.

Directly addressing what this person is saying with the facts isn't going to work, because it's obvious that nothing can convince them otherwise. I think it's better to look at why they've fixated themselves so strongly on this opinion and are so desperate to maintain it.

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

#567

Post by otterley »

smaryjerry wrote: post #561
otterley wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NFL teams have continued to let plenty of players who have suffered injuries and had less-than-stellar records continue to play. If you can demonstrate that there's a clear pattern of players with Kaepernick's on-the-field record being treated similarly, then your argument holds some water; but otherwise, it's just a convenient pretext.

Comparisons to other players are just silly, yes it has happened before but that doesn’t mean anything when it comes down to an individual. I’m not sure what else is needed to explain what makes a poor QB other than losing records in both recent and lifetime stats, injuries, and failure under pressure? If that isn’t a pattern showing lack of skill I don’t know what is. He is also aging as a scrambling QB, everyone kn…

> He has been scouted by tens and none decided to pick him up

If you're on the margin performance-wise, and you are also carrying this controversial political baggage, then that baggage is likely going to be the tipping factor. The argument you have to convincingly make is that even without the baggage, Kaepernick would not be playing. That is why comparisons to players with similar performance records are relevant, not "silly."

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

#568

Post by [deleted] »

bduerst wrote: post #566
acdha wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Texas law was not supported by mainstream conservatives This is a classic No True Scotsman argument: that law was enacted by Texas Republicans and has been protected by the Republicans at various levels of federal court up to the Supreme Court, and copies of that law are being enacted by Republicans in other states. If you want us to believe that’s not aligned with mainstream conservatism, show that the larger…

Yeah, it's insane watching this degree of confirmation bias unfold real time just reading this thread. Directly addressing what this person is saying with the facts isn't going to work, because it's obvious that nothing can convince them otherwise. I think it's better to look at why they've fixated themselves so strongly on this opinion and are so desperate to maintain it.

[deleted]

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

#569

Post by smaryjerry »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #558
smaryjerry wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, as I said that is one persons opinion who through either ignorance, pressure, or bias will choose a political side. We have former military generals claiming there were aliens found but one person’s claim while it makes a story for an article does not represent evidence.

To compare a former exec listing a very possible situation to the ravings about aliens is, once against, blatantly dishonest. To get back to the original point, I don't know what to tell you. If you think cancelling is a tactic only implemented by the left, then there is a very thick layer of irony in your "one persons opinion who through either ignorance, pressure, or bias will choose a political side" line. Have a…

This is just common sense in my eyes that you should scrutinize a source when especially if it comes from a very small group or one person with motivations to pick a political side and you will find one person to pick an opposite side in every case. I already stated that cancel culture comes from both sides and we don’t have data to prove this definitively but when the cancellation is an overreaction it is typically coming from one side and in particular on claims of sex, race, and religion. I’m not going to pretend there’s a clear cut line what makes someone right or left but when it comes to specific topics big tech will always lean to one side of the line.

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

#570

Post by Forgeties79 »

smaryjerry wrote: post #569
Forgeties79 wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To compare a former exec listing a very possible situation to the ravings about aliens is, once against, blatantly dishonest. To get back to the original point, I don't know what to tell you. If you think cancelling is a tactic only implemented by the left, then there is a very thick layer of irony in your "one persons opinion who through either ignorance, pressure, or bias will choose a political side" line. Have a…

This is just common sense in my eyes that you should scrutinize a source when especially if it comes from a very small group or one person with motivations to pick a political side and you will find one person to pick an opposite side in every case. I already stated that cancel culture comes from both sides and we don’t have data to prove this definitively but when the cancellation is an overreaction it is typically…

>I’m not going to pretend there’s a clear cut line what makes someone right or left but when it comes to specific topics big tech will always lean to one side of the line.

You should check this once a day and see the reality. https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10/status/150666209988752998...

I'm done man. This is just a flamewar at this point.

Post reply on HN