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

621–630 of 633 posts

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

#621

Post by noduerme »

gilbetron wrote: post #551
jimbokun wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Fight the Power” rap groups were incredibly popular then, and enjoyed a lot of support across races. The movement for same sex marriage started in earnest then. Feminism didn’t start in the 2000s. All of those groups had a lot to say in the 90s, and the norms protecting free speech enabled them to say it, even when it was unpopular.

And they were "canceled" like crazy. People spoke up about all these issues, and were fired, beaten, jailed, killed, and worse. But a white dude totally could say what he wanted to, kinda.

This is a really toxic, ahistorical attitude that pays no attention to the many individuals of all races and genders who sacrificed for greater equality. It also fails to address the situation of a nonwhite person now who is cancelled for disagreeing with woke sloganeering, or explain how that's justified just because someone else was evil to someone else in the past.

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

#622

Post by krageon »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #612
krageon wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> [...] it is the company's problem as well.

Respectfully, I think with these paragraphs you've established that in this situation it's primarily your problem. The environment was there before you came around and clearly it worked well enough to keep things afloat, so unless you are the one person on earth with the skills you have it is not the company's problem.

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

#623

Post by gilbetron »

noduerme wrote: post #621
gilbetron wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they were "canceled" like crazy. People spoke up about all these issues, and were fired, beaten, jailed, killed, and worse. But a white dude totally could say what he wanted to, kinda.

This is a really toxic, ahistorical attitude that pays no attention to the many individuals of all races and genders who sacrificed for greater equality. It also fails to address the situation of a nonwhite person now who is cancelled for disagreeing with woke sloganeering, or explain how that's justified just because someone else was evil to someone else in the past.

I disagree. Believing the 90s were more free speech and ignoring the context of that era is the toxic, history-ignoring attitude. That's not to say we don't have problems currently, but it is better than it was in the 90s, overall.

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

#624

Post by letmeiiin »

TameAntelope wrote: post #177
cowuser666 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no chilling effects here..

My point is cancel culture is not very chilling if you're a competent speaker/writer, and it ought to be even less chilling than it is (possibly not chilling at all). If you believe you're entering a conversation with positive intent, a genuine point of view, and empathy for others, you are more or less immune to being cancelled.

For the lack of a better expression, you are full of *it.

The bar you are setting for people to speak without a mob ending them is so high it's not even funny.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante

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

#625

Post by Forgeties79 »

krageon wrote: post #622
Forgeties79 wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> [...] it is the company's problem as well. Respectfully, I think with these paragraphs you've established that in this situation it's primarily your problem. The environment was there before you came around and clearly it worked well enough to keep things afloat, so unless you are the one person on earth with the skills you have it is not the company's problem.

Respectfully, it is primarily the company’s problem by law.

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/hostile-work-environmen...

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

#626

Post by zeruch »

jhgb wrote: post #614
zeruch wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harvey Weinstein?

Imprisonment for a crime is now "cancelling"? Really?

Thank you for either 1. being humor-deficient or 2. intentionally misinterpreting what I stated for your own self-righteous indignation performance opportunity.

Even if you removed my snark, if one looks at his prosecution as a byproduct of the change in the cultural climate, a powerful entity being actually sent to prison for behavior they historically got away with is in a way, a 'cancellation' of their impunity, which is fundamentally a good thing, and (hopefully) precedent-setting.

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

#627

Post by mbrodersen »

otterley wrote: post #617
mbrodersen wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

“I like cheese” will be offensive and perhaps upsetting to some vegans. So better not talk about food at work. The same with pretty much any subject you can think of. Making the work environment or any other environment non-upsetting to everybody at all time is impossible. Somebody gets promoted instead of you: now you are upset. So let’s ban promoting people. The CEO makes 1000x more money than you while golfing every day? That upsets a lot of people. So let’s ban that. Some people are better dresses than you at work. How upsetting. Let’s all wear identical clothes. I could go on. But that might upset somebody somewhere.

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

#628

Post by Forgeties79 »

mbrodersen wrote: post #627
otterley wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

“I like cheese” will be offensive and perhaps upsetting to some vegans. So better not talk about food at work. The same with pretty much any subject you can think of. Making the work environment or any other environment non-upsetting to everybody at all time is impossible. Somebody gets promoted instead of you: now you are upset. So let’s ban promoting people. The CEO makes 1000x more money than you while golfing eve…

I get why this “could” happen but I find it hard to believe you think that’s how things shake out even 1% of the time. You’re spiking the conversation with a vaguely-slippery-slope argument rooted in niche theoretical scenarios.

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

#629

Post by mbrodersen »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #628
mbrodersen wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I like cheese” will be offensive and perhaps upsetting to some vegans. So better not talk about food at work. The same with pretty much any subject you can think of. Making the work environment or any other environment non-upsetting to everybody at all time is impossible. Somebody gets promoted instead of you: now you are upset. So let’s ban promoting people. The CEO makes 1000x more money than you while golfing eve…

I get why this “could” happen but I find it hard to believe you think that’s how things shake out even 1% of the time. You’re spiking the conversation with a vaguely-slippery-slope argument rooted in niche theoretical scenarios.

Not at all. I have experienced co-workers getting upset over things like that. Leading to heated arguments and bad feelings. My point is that what you happens to think is offensive and what isn’t does not match what others find offensive. So trying to ban everything that might offend somebody somewhere will lead to everything being banned. It won’t just be your particular pet ban list.

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

#630

Post by [deleted] »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #612
krageon wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN