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

531–540 of 633 posts

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

#531

Post by smaryjerry »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #525
smaryjerry wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly it sounds like every description of conservatives is coming from not only 10 years ago but 20 years ago. Keapernick is a terrible example because he had shoulder surgery and then lost nearly every game of the following season before he was cut by the most liberal team in the league, the San Francisco 49ers, and also to mention he had very key interceptions in playoff games that were all but won. The claim th…

Kaepernick [edit: almost] had a ring. You think the Browns couldn’t have used him? The Lions? The Bengals? Your point is also moot when a former NFL exec confirms he was blackballed for his protest. https://sports.yahoo.com/in-light-of-george-floyds-death-ex-... >Colin Kaepernick was not bounced by NFL team owners because of his skill. He was not bounced because of salary demands. And he was not bounced because he wa…

No post body was provided.

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

#532

Post by krageon »

otterley wrote: post #450
mbrodersen wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are suggesting is impossible in practice. It is impossible to not accidentally upset somebody no matter what you say. Unless what you say is so meaningless and vanilla that you might as well not have said anything. We would have to ban all jokes, all political opinions, all scientific discoveries (because religious people might be upset), all expressions of art etc. That is impossible.

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.

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

#533

Post by ashtonkem »

jeherr wrote: post #523
ashtonkem wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But that, once upon a time, and it wasn't too long ago, there was a thing known as "civil discourse" in this country. In which (and granted the boundaries are fuzzy hear) -- in itself the mere fact of having an unpopular (or difficult) opinion on the state of the world ... did not run such an alarmingly and dysfunctional risk of getting you shut down in form or another as it does today. This is so disconnected with…

This doesn't prove that we haven't taken steps backwards in terms of what is allowed as civil discourse in recent years. You're correct that many things were once completely unallowed by virtue of repercussions, which we now see as within the overton window. We've worked towards getting better though and we shouldn't throw that away. What people today are reacting to is that it feels like we are less free to speak ou…

> What people today are reacting to is that it feels like we are less free to speak our minds, at least on some topics, than we were just a few decades ago.

And yet nobody ever produces any evidence that that’s actually true. This is particularly troubling when people are asserting that something ought to be done culturally or legislatively, when all they’ve got is a vague feeling that things are getting worse.

Such observations seem to be completely disjoint from the rapid widening of the overton window that’s happened since the advent of the “alt-right” and to the lesser extent the dirtbag left. I cannot square the evidence free assertion that people feel less free to speak their minds with nazi marches in major cities chanting about jews, and tucker carlson talking about white replacement theory on prime time television. These two things are fundamentally incompatible.

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

#534

Post by smaryjerry »

otterley wrote: post #527
smaryjerry wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly it sounds like every description of conservatives is coming from not only 10 years ago but 20 years ago. Keapernick is a terrible example because he had shoulder surgery and then lost nearly every game of the following season before he was cut by the most liberal team in the league, the San Francisco 49ers, and also to mention he had very key interceptions in playoff games that were all but won. The claim th…

> Abortions are not under threat at all, unless you count those claiming that you can’t have an abortion after 8 months pregnant when the baby can be born instead. Have you been living under a rock someplace? https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/txpep/research-briefs/senate-... https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-health-...

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.

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

#535

Post by acdha »

smaryjerry wrote: post #534
otterley wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Abortions are not under threat at all, unless you count those claiming that you can’t have an abortion after 8 months pregnant when the baby can be born instead. Have you been living under a rock someplace? https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/txpep/research-briefs/senate-... https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-health-...

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 conservative movement is fighting it.

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

#536

Post by tptacek »

smaryjerry wrote: post #531
Forgeties79 wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kaepernick [edit: almost] had a ring. You think the Browns couldn’t have used him? The Lions? The Bengals? Your point is also moot when a former NFL exec confirms he was blackballed for his protest. https://sports.yahoo.com/in-light-of-george-floyds-death-ex-... >Colin Kaepernick was not bounced by NFL team owners because of his skill. He was not bounced because of salary demands. And he was not bounced because he wa…

Quoted post unavailable.

You can't talk to people like this here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#537

Post by tptacek »

da39a3ee wrote: post #505
tptacek wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's to say what's "reasonable"? Marriage equality was considered absolutely unreasonable just 15 years ago. I think you need to learn to live with the fact that people can simply decide to find your opinions odious, and a consequence of that will be you not being able to work with them. You don't have a right to force people to associate with you.

I’ve already told you that I accept that. But odious cuts both ways: people like me find people who would shun and shame someone for holding a differing view odious, and we wouldn't want to work with them. Or hire them. I would never have shunned and/or shamed them had they not started it, but I am capable of retaliation. In fact, this conversation has inspired me. I interview for SWE positions. It's time to stand up…

Absolutely, go right ahead.

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

#538

Post by otterley »

smaryjerry wrote: post #534
otterley wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Abortions are not under threat at all, unless you count those claiming that you can’t have an abortion after 8 months pregnant when the baby can be born instead. Have you been living under a rock someplace? https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/txpep/research-briefs/senate-... https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-health-...

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 federal law is not under threat

There is no Federal law governing abortion. State law governs abortions, subject to Roe v. Wade and subsequent cases that provide a Constitutional right to abortion within certain parameters that the States cannot abrogate.

The Supreme Court is already considering a Mississippi abortion law case (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, nr. 19-1392) that, depending on the outcome, could significantly curtail this right, possibly lowering the deadline to 15 weeks. The decision is expected in June.

> There is a zero percentage chance the Supreme Court re-hears the [Texas] case on abortion.

If they do, will you come back and admit you were wrong?

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

#539

Post by tptacek »

jollybean wrote: post #504
tptacek wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not interested in rehabilitating Pinker, who appeared in Epstein's flight logs and has been photographed socializing with him. My point is simply that he tends to be a bad example when brought up in these kinds of discussions. He's treated as if he's simply a celebrity scientist caught in the limelight over political tweets. But he's not just that.

Rubbish - Pinker is exactly the person that should be protected and there's no need to 'rehabilitate him' from anything. Celebrities of various kinds interact with each other, that's how that works. If you were invited to a conference and the CEO invited you on his plane because you had something interesting to say, and 10 years later we find he was a rapist, do we cancel you? If you're going to tell me that Pinker w…

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.

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

#540

Post by tptacek »

jollybean wrote: post #503
gjm11 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alan Dershowitz wrote to Pinker asking "do you reckon this statute means X or Y?" and Pinker said "It obviously means X". So far as I can tell, (1) Pinker didn't know that this was specifically about the Epstein case, (2) Pinker gave an honest answer to the question, and (3) Pinker's answer was in fact obviously correct. Epstein was an awful person who did awful things and should have spent the rest of his life in pr…

??? You're making my case for me. Pinker is absolutely, unconditionally a very reasonable and thoughtful person, who in absolutely no way shape or form should be contemplated for cancellation or even marginalisation. He's a polite, thoughtful, conscientious guy with barely objectionable opinions, not only that, he's pretty smart and actually contributes to discussions. He's maybe the last person on earth we want to c…

My point is simply that there are issues other than Pinker's dalliances with racialist pseudoscientists that prompt objections to him; for instance, the fact that he contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's defense. That's all.
Post reply on HN