Resignation Letter • Hacker News Board

Re: Resignation Letter

#261

Post by gfodor » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #99

gfodor wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hilarious that the top comment exemplifies the problem. It seems few today are still able to engage with ideas directly, always trying to filter them through some, any, lens to discredit the ones they don’t like. Sometimes it’s attacking the speaker, sometimes their associations, sometimes the tweets they have “liked.” If all else fails, seek out language in the text itself for unfalsifiable “dog whistles” that allow…

The people who have spent decades trying to keep the airwaves "clean," "family friendly," "anti-communist," etc, are suddenly shocked that they don't get to set the rules anymore, and that they're on the wrong side of some of them. Context is everything for this discussion, because if you truly don't want there to be such censorship, you have to be aware of the motivations of the people pushing for change at the top…

Your argument that “context is everything” is exactly my point. It’s not. Context is something. If context was everything, then there is no point in writing anything, because words cannot be wielded to create new meaning. Their meaning will be imbued by their collectively interpreted context.

Re: Resignation Letter

#262

Post by asquabventured » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 5:02 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #207

tomcam wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She doesn't want free speech. She wants consequence free speech. She wants her detractors silenced by the law Not sure we read the same letter. Can you support these assertions based on the text?

I thought that was clear from my previous comment, so I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. She used the term "unlawful discrimination". She wants this behavior to stop. She is calling this behavior out as illegal. I don't think it is a leap to think that she wants this behavior that she is against and called illegal to be stopped by the law.

I think she wants her previous employer to protect her rights and not be subject to a hostile work environment, no?

Re: Resignation Letter

#263

Post by alkibiades » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 5:02 PM UTC

the comments on this thread just remind me how conventional in thinking most people in tech are with regards to politics. why is it we pride ourselves in thinking outside the box but everyone marches exactly down the line with the same political views? you know something is up when it’s hard to find even one donation to a republican from some companies employees

Re: Resignation Letter

#264

Post by jimbokun » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 5:02 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #88

seibelj wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the latest argument from people who claim cancel culture doesn't exist. "How are you being silenced when everyone will read it from your high perch?" High-level writers need to push back against illiberal and anti-free speech proponents to give cover for the lower ranks. If even the top tier writers can't speak their mind, does the lowly intern or new hire stand a chance?

The problem with this rebuttal is that it assumes that the high–level writers and editors are not themselves the illiberal and anti–speech proponents, gatekeeping what perspectives are allowed to be represented in the first place. For example: Harper's Magazine, which published the recent open letter on cancel culture that Bari Weiss signed, doesn't pay its interns [1], ensuring that only those who can afford to work…

How do you know they support Harper’s not paying interns? Maybe they object to that, too.

Re: Resignation Letter

#265

Post by monksy » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

On a similar vane of this. It's complex issue, however I have seen incivility here that I would say is mentioned there. (It was on the kernel terminology change)

Someone mentioned about the annoyance of "tiptoing with certain groups on topics"

Someone responded with " by tiptoeing do you mean 'respecting others opinions'"

It's the lack of ability to have civil discord and respecting other's opinions (even if they're stupid or wrong) that I believe has taken over in society and it's showing a harmful effect. I do have a concern over the publications that we read and I do think that Weiss has a good point, even if his/her contributions, aren't 100% stellar.

Re: Resignation Letter

#266

Post by manfredo » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #207

tomcam wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She doesn't want free speech. She wants consequence free speech. She wants her detractors silenced by the law Not sure we read the same letter. Can you support these assertions based on the text?

I thought that was clear from my previous comment, so I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. She used the term "unlawful discrimination". She wants this behavior to stop. She is calling this behavior out as illegal. I don't think it is a leap to think that she wants this behavior that she is against and called illegal to be stopped by the law.

> My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

> There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong

I don't think this is referring to curbing any specific opinion or view, but rather her co-workers' interactions with her.

Its entirely appropriate to speak out against, say, the pervasive denial of climate change among evangelicals. That said if you have an evangelical coworker that doesn't believe in climate change, you will still be met with repercussions if you go around calling said co-worker a backwards dumbass and repeatedly post ax emojis next to their name in slack.

Re: Resignation Letter

#267

Post by alkibiades » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

some-guy wrote: post #109

mellosouls wrote: post #28

There seems to be more and more public acknowledgement (and in fora like this one) of the myriad leftist 1984-style attacks we are currently witnessing - every bit as bad as the McCarthy era led by the right. As appalling as the behaviour of these people is, that growing awareness can only be a good thing.

The woke-left isn't going around arresting people, nor do they have much (if any) influence in high levels of government.

they are one election from influence. and they do have influence in state governments. like california, one of the worlds largest economies.

see aca5

Re: Resignation Letter

#268

Post by Benjammer » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

jkingsbery wrote: post #237

Benjammer wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just sounds like bluster and emotion to me though. Why is truth not a process of collective discovery? Is this implying that truth used to be this and now is not? What exactly does "collective discovery" mean in the context of a newspaper? What evidence is there that this used to be the case and now is not? What is the new "orthodoxy"? Are you able to describe this orthodoxy in specific terms and not just labels…

> What exactly does "collective discovery" mean in the context of a newspaper? National Review will often have a chain of columns between two of its writers going back and forth debating the merits of a particular position. That is what collective discovery should look like - a publication should encourage views that the editors might disagree with in order to understand the different perspectives on a topic. Now, it…

I mostly intended these questions rhetorically, or directed at Bari herself, as opposed to really wanting another HN commenter to go down the line and "respond" to each one. I don't know how productive that is going to be on this forum.

Re: Resignation Letter

#269

Post by cygx » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

mikece wrote: post #146

seppin wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I might be misremembering but I thought her appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast was cited by some as her making a fool of herself while trying to answer an honestly curious question by Joe (and I'm pretty sure she's been on since and will almost certainly be making a visit again soon as she's "news hot" right now which is the best time for an interview). As for the future of media, I wonder if long-form podcasting wh…

I might be misremembering but I thought her appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast was cited by some as her making a fool of herself while trying to answer an honestly curious question by Joe

She called Tulsi Gabbard an 'Assad toady' with monstrous ideas. The funny part was them looking up the definition of toady (Joe wasn't aware of the meaning of the word), but the more damning part was Bari's defense of that characterization (from memory: she didn't remember any details, but was sure she read it somewhere).

That was almost but not quite as bad as Dave Rubin's appearance, where he explained how building codes are unnecessary as contractors have a vested interest to do a good job due to Yelp reviews...

Rogan invites on plenty of people with whom he's not ideologically aligned and they have civil, intelligent discussions...

While I personally find the podcasts oftentimes entertaining, there's generally a lot of fluff and rarely any hard-hitting debate.

Re: Resignation Letter

#270

Post by jimbokun » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

deleuze wrote: post #61

seibelj wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the latest argument from people who claim cancel culture doesn't exist. "How are you being silenced when everyone will read it from your high perch?" High-level writers need to push back against illiberal and anti-free speech proponents to give cover for the lower ranks. If even the top tier writers can't speak their mind, does the lowly intern or new hire stand a chance?

I'll start caring more about this "silencing" once the NYT editorial board starts including viewpoints that are actually silenced in our society. Until then, it's just whining about no longer being free from criticism.

What viewpoints? Are we just supposed to guess, or automatically know which viewpoints you mean?