The irony for me here is that while I'd like to comment on this topic my HN account has been throttled because I've commented on these types of threads in the past.
Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
611–620 of 633 posts
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#612Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 tal…
> I just don't know how you can say things like this when professional environments like Activision-Blizzard exist You don't agree people should leave Activision-Blizzard? I'm not convinced all the drama actually improved the company, though it was probably very satisfying to see for some folks. > I do NOT want that at work, and I think I am entitled to [...] That's a valid feeling, but nobody else is obliged to give…
>That's a valid feeling, but nobody else is obliged to give that to you. You find a company that works for you, or you adapt to the one that you want to work for you. You don't go to war with the culture of a company just because something you feel entitled to isn't yet there.
No, I am entitled to that. I am there to do a job, not put up with someone's ravings about politics or whatever. I am forced into a space with them 40+ hours a week, my choice to remove myself from their presence has been taken way from me.
It is the company's responsibility to not foster a hostile work environment or one where people are constantly uncomfortable. If I have a colleague constantly going off on political rants and/or interacting with me in a different (unprofessional) manner at work it is the company's problem as well.
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#613Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Donald Trump Trump was banned from twitter after he already lost the presidency, and banning from a mediocre low-IQ forum is not how most cancel culture opponents define it, the dominant conception has an essential material aspect to it, such as firing from a job, harassment or extra-legal violence. >Plenty of politicians and celebrities have been cancelled for racist, sexist and otherwise abusive behavior, but I do…
>Trump was banned from twitter after he already lost the presidency, and banning from a mediocre low-IQ forum is not how most cancel culture opponents define it, the dominant conception has an essential material aspect to it, such as firing from a job, harassment or extra-legal violence. Opponents of cancel culture absolutely considered Donald Trump to be a victim of it. They still hold him up as an example of cancel…
> Opponents of cancel culture absolutely considered Donald Trump to be a victim of it.
Is that an existential or universal claim?
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#614Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#615Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said "for actions they take that harm others", and you jumped to some trivial difference of opinion. If the difference of opinion is supporting policy that hurts me or people I care about, then yes, of course it can harm me. You are saying that someone can use freedom of expression to say people I care about should not have human rights, but I can't say those people shouldn't be employed by some company. Freedom of…
> " You are saying that someone can use freedom of expression to say people I care about should not have human rights, but I can't say those people shouldn't be employed by some company. " Like unborn fetuses? (I am pro-choice by the way.) The pro-life side care about them and feel they should have human rights and, by the silly paradox of tolerance people seem to love to quote, they're even justified in not tolerati…
Yes. I believe that those people should be able to judge me and socially shun me, including calling for my firing, if I express that I am pro-choice.
I think they are wrong, but it's on me to try and persuade enough people that I'm right.
If they see it as I support murdering innocent people, then how can I possibly demand they hand me money, interact with me normally, etc...? I'm certainly not going to employ someone who says "I think we should kill ".
I think they are fundamentally wrong about the core concept, I don't think it's right for them to "cancel" people over that as a result, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal to do so, because forcing people to support behaviour they find abhorrent is worse.
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#616Earlier quoted context omitted.
Individuals make that decision, just as they do when it comes to democracy as a whole. That's the point of freedom of speech: we can't have an authority on the truth. The alternative is you aren't allowed to dislike and refuse to patronize someone because of their actions, which is obviously absurd. Everyone agrees people shouldn't face disproportionate responses, so arguing for that is nothing. Either you need to ar…
Maybe you could provide a solid point of "the actual harm done" when someone says "there are nazis in the army"? (if it's true) If it's false, maybe you can claim slander on an entire army? Even the law doesn't protect anyone from that...
The harm done is very clear: the indented implication that Ukraine is controlled by Nazis is intended to justify Russia's illegal and unjustified war which is about control by Russia, and helps no one in Ukraine.
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#617Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's possible, but a more likely explanation is that most people know better than to make inappropriate jokes about their colleagues. In my 30-year-long career, the number of people I've observed making such jokes is far outweighed by the number of people who maintain a professional demeanor.
Let me give you an example: Let’s say (for arguments sake) that I got upset reading your comment. Following your logic it is now your fault that I am upset. So you need to change your behaviour until I am no longer upset. Can you see how impractical/impossible that is? Any opinion you have might upset somebody. So the only way to not upset anybody is to stay silent.
You're not following my logic, because it's not what I said, or what I mean. We're talking specifically about off-color jokes about work colleagues, not factual statements like "I ate an apple" or uncontroversial personal opinions like "I like cheese."
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#618Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Here are two links. Marijuana (though nothing to link explicitly to gop): https://www.aclu.org/gallery/marijuana-arrests-numbers Jury of peers, very explicit from gop: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/08/07/racism-tainted... I'm not an expert; these are the first two things I stumbled on in verifying my position. I don't believe you are discussing in good faith, goodbye.
> I don't believe you are discussing in good faith, goodbye
Are you capable of discerning between bad faith and disagreement?
I actually believe what I am arguing: that cancel culture in the present moment is dominated by the Left.
Do Republicans and people on the right do bad stuff? Absolutely (even if i disagree about many of the particulars). But cancel culture is far from the only critique I have of the Left.
This is not about "which side is worse" in the broader picture. I'm trying not to simply turn this into a political mud-slinging contest. I'm trying to get at what cancel culture actually is (you know, the topic of this thread).
In response, you made a claim that certain things were examples of "cancel culture" coming from the right. A claim you have thus far still utterly failed to defend.
If all you want to do is complain about every bad thing a Republican ever did, then I agree this discussion should end.
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#619Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here are two links. Marijuana (though nothing to link explicitly to gop): https://www.aclu.org/gallery/marijuana-arrests-numbers Jury of peers, very explicit from gop: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/08/07/racism-tainted... I'm not an expert; these are the first two things I stumbled on in verifying my position. I don't believe you are discussing in good faith, goodbye.
> I don't believe you are discussing in good faith, goodbye Are you capable of discerning between bad faith and disagreement? I actually believe what I am arguing: that cancel culture in the present moment is dominated by the Left. Do Republicans and people on the right do bad stuff? Absolutely (even if i disagree about many of the particulars). But cancel culture is far from the only critique I have of the Left. Thi…
Because you do seem genuine I will describe why I find this discussion to be in bad faith. You rarely (if ever) grant a charitable interpretation to my statements. You (almost?) always extrapolate my comments to the most extreme and weakest position. You seem to mostly be interested in "winning" and are funneling the conversation to points you find yourself most comfortable and strongest in. You regularly attack me as a person.
I find it unlikely that if I were to surface information and/or an argument to you that you did not know, that you would incorporate it into your world view. It seems you would dismiss it and focus on other aspects of the discussion and/or extrapolate the new argument to an absurd extreme thus making it irrelevant.
> In response, you made a claim that certain things were examples of "cancel culture" coming from the right. A claim you have thus far still utterly failed to defend.
I think this is the crux here. I offered a potential alternative explanation for why we might see more "cancel culture" from the "left" than the "right". Simply that the "right" often has more effective and lower risk options in "cancelling" a person.
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#620Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it should continue. For a while I was leaning against it, but on reflection I realized that there is no obligation for me to listen to or engage with people that have abhorrent views. Rarely will doing so actually change their mind, or mine. What corporations are allowed to do is one thing, but as an individual I've decided to take cancel culture to heart. When possible, I now just put anyone with awful views…
> For a while I was leaning against it, but on reflection I realized that there is no obligation for me to listen to or engage with people that have abhorrent views. Rarely will doing so actually change their mind, or mine. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but your notion has pretty much nothing to with what other people call "cancel culture". If there is a talk about topic "X", you not showing up is not "ca…
Sure, but as a private institution you also have no obligation to give a person a platform to talk about "X." The counter to this is why not give free promotion to people who can't afford it? Why are we biasing "speech" towards those who can pay to be loud? That's not freedom either. The poor are by default "canceled" in many ways.