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

581–590 of 633 posts

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

#581

Post by smaryjerry »

otterley wrote: post #567
smaryjerry wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I think that I am still making a compelling argument on his performance even without the PR issues. I mean the browns just signed a QB with 22 active sexual assault cases, it’s a reach to believe that they would not sign Kaepernick because one time he upset some cops and overzealous fans by kneeling. He takes too much blame for starting that but it was a very popular trend among players afterwards and many players kneel without issue.

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

#582

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#583

Post by Misdicorl »

lliamander wrote: post #574
Misdicorl wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not able to respond to your below point. I understand why you jumped to the crack/cocaine disparity. In response if like to surface three points 1) it seems unlikely (although I don't have/know data) that a 10% population can have 80% of the convictions without intentional bias at play. Black people are not the only poor people in America. 2) I emphasized drug policy in general. I think you will find it much hard…

So there's two levels to this debate: 1) How unfair/biased is the policing of blacks in America? 2) To what extent is that unfairness the result of the right intentionally trying to harm their outgroup? That second point is essential to your argument that that bias in criminal law is a form of "right-wing cancel culture". When a left-wing twitter mob joins in to get a man fired from his job for holding his fingers in…

> (if you are) correct about racial unfairness in the criminal justice system (which you are not)

I think if we can't agree here, we are unlikely to agree on much of anything at all.

> you are arguing that biased outcomes in criminal law are the intentional outcome of right-wingers targeting their political enemies (who are black people, apparently?)

Yes. And closer to scapegoat/target than enemy, but sure.

> even if the police enforcing these laws were majority right-wing

They are, as I understand it. But I care little about this point and accept that there are many good police officers who are not biased.

> it was all a right-wing plot completely untenable

Its not a plot. Its a tool used by the right wing to achieve their aims. Whether that tool had good or bad motives at the start is immaterial to the discussion of how its used in practice.

> With all this in mind, what you are arguing sounds more like a conspiracy theory.

The right wing has many tools at its disposal in order to silence and oppress their targets. Of these tools, public derision via cancel culture requires specific targets and has a large chance of blow back via the Streissand effect rallying supporters to the targetted individual. In contrast, broad untargetted attacks afforded by diffuse structures like criminal law enforcement, crippling economic controls, political deactivation via gerrymandering and direct voter suppression are far more effective tools at their disposal.

Notice the fact that you are able to point to a specific event and specific supporters of the outcome of that event in your comparison of "left" cancel culture to "right" oppression. I know you have decided that is the nail in the coffin of my argument. However, consider how much more effective my arguments could be and how difficult a time you would have if that person were fired from their job after holding that ok sign up. But there wasn't a twitter mob. Just a routine dismissal from the company. And all you could do was point at how often that happens to people like that and how little it happens to people who do the same thing but have a different skin color/sex/wear glasses/whatever.

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

#584

Post by prutschman »

gjm11 wrote: post #577
tptacek wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, I can't think of that many other "celebrities" that contributed directly to Jeffrey Epstein's sweetheart sentence in 2008, which enabled him to continue trafficking and abusing minors in the ensuing decade.

What do you think Pinker should have done when Dershowitz wrote to him asking "what exactly do you think this statute means"?

I genuinely hope both of you continue this thread, even as I think it's unlikely that you'll come to common ground. I'm finding it extremely helpful to clarify my thoughts on this type of situation.

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

#585

Post by [deleted] »

smaryjerry wrote: post #563
Forgeties79 wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

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

#586

Post by cgrealy »

whiddershins wrote: post #398
Jensson wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want a free and open society where people can discuss ideas and those ideas are weighed on their merits and the ridiculous ones (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) are laughed at. > But that's not what's happened. The Overton Window in the US has dramatically shifted. Any evidence for this? To me it seems like things went in the right direction and never really stopped. That things are getting worse and therefore w…

You miss the concept that gay marriage was controversial. Obama was against it. Therefore if that debate was held in the current environment proponents of gay marriage might be silenced and banned

That seems highly unlikely.

I would say that the debate over transgender rights (bathrooms, etc) is in a similar cultural position to gay marriage a few years ago (i.e. liberals are fine with it, centrists are coming round to the idea and hardline conservatives are having a "moral panic"), yet no one is being silenced there.

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

#587

Post by cgrealy »

Jensson wrote: post #431
whiddershins wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You miss the concept that gay marriage was controversial. Obama was against it. Therefore if that debate was held in the current environment proponents of gay marriage might be silenced and banned

That is the point, restricting speech isn't a good thing. The poster I replied to argued that restricting speech is a good thing since things are getting worse, even though we can see that things has steadily gotten better. There is no need to restrict speech to make things better, instead things are likely to get much worse by restricting speech as your example shows.

For the record, that is not at all what I was arguing.

I was arguing that completely unrestricted speech allows ideas that we really don't want (Nazism, etc) to become normalized.

This isn't even controversial; it's a well known phenomenon.

It's also very difficult to discuss this without talking about Trump and that instantly derails any conversation, but to address the elephant in the room, can you imagine even GW Bush saying "there were fine people on both sides"?

I also said that I don't know what the correct fix for that is.

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

#588

Post by lliamander »

Misdicorl wrote: post #583
lliamander wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So there's two levels to this debate: 1) How unfair/biased is the policing of blacks in America? 2) To what extent is that unfairness the result of the right intentionally trying to harm their outgroup? That second point is essential to your argument that that bias in criminal law is a form of "right-wing cancel culture". When a left-wing twitter mob joins in to get a man fired from his job for holding his fingers in…

> (if you are) correct about racial unfairness in the criminal justice system (which you are not) I think if we can't agree here, we are unlikely to agree on much of anything at all. > you are arguing that biased outcomes in criminal law are the intentional outcome of right-wingers targeting their political enemies (who are black people, apparently?) Yes. And closer to scapegoat/target than enemy, but sure. > even if…

You have yet to explain how racially unfair outcomes in the criminal justice system are the intended result of actions by the political right.

I point out those on the political left have been involved in all aspects of the crafting and enforcement of these laws.

You have made no other argument than to point out that disparate outcomes in the criminal justice system exist.

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

#589

Post by akhmatova »

ashtonkem wrote: post #530
akhmatova wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you need to dial as far back as 1930s to find a climate worse than what we have now (just so you can say "I betcha you didn't know about that stuff!") would seem to indicate... that there's not a lot substance to this argument. Are we in a worse place than the darkest decades of the 20th century? Or even half as bad of place? Of course not. That doesn't that the current climate hasn't deteriorated subst…

> The fact that you need to dial as far back as 1930s to find a climate worse than what we have now (just so you can say "I betcha you didn't know about that stuff!") would seem to indicate... that there's not a lot substance to this argument. I listed examples from the 1990s though, not just the 1930s. The moral panics of the 1980s and 1990s provides a ripe set of examples, if you’re interested in more. There is als…

The best answer I can give you is: "Go read a book or two about it."

Unfortunately you weren't very civil in your initial response, a few levels above. And it takes time to provide even a cursory list of examples you are asking for. Meanwhile there is an active genocide operation happening in a part of the world I have some close connections to. And a day job that I theoretically need to tend to, as well.

So I just don't have time to help you out here.

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

#590

Post by olivermarks »

tootie wrote: post #573
spupe wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad, because he has a great account of how the Russiagate scandal was overblown by the media: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-mill... You could choose to look at it critically and decide for yourself what you believe in. It is a factual, point-by-point destruction of your claim above. Zero percent of it hinges on how perfect Taibbi as a person is, or was 20 years ago. Your ideological puri…

Wow, that has aged poorly. All of the stories he insists should be walked back have been confirmed. Manafort and Flynn were both pardoned by Trump despite definitely having communication with Russian agents and lying about it. Roger Stone was also convicted for his role in coordinating the DNC email release with GRU via WikiLeaks. Russian agents visited Trump Tower to sell the campaign emails. Trump lied about his bu…

The only thing that has 'aged poorly' is the #russiagate debacle, which as a result has seriously undermined the credibility of what's left of the legacy media due to their choices to promote endless conspiracy ideas which turned out to be untrue.

This has nothing to do with the endless 'mastercard or visa' team sport that is US politics, which is stitched up by the DNC & RNC and their media so no new parties or politicians can play. We need quality independent journalist more urgently than ever as a result...

Post reply on HN