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

551–560 of 633 posts

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

#551

Post by gilbetron »

jimbokun wrote: post #447
gilbetron wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were white, straight, cis, and particularly male, then this is true. Everyone else, eh not so much!

“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.

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

#552

Post by otterley »

rayiner wrote: post #548
Blackstrat wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental problem is that people have become conditioned to think of themselves as a member of a group first and an individual second. In many cases, the individual identity is completely obscured by the group identity. It doesn't matter if one is black, white, gay, straight, etc. It matters who they are as an individual, how they live their lives, care for their families, and so on. If one doesn't like a joke,…

I’ll bring a third perspective to this: as an immigrant from a more collectivist society, I am conditioned to see myself as a member of a group. I recognize the benefits of it, but I just don’t like individuality all that much. I’m inclined to be very deferential to what my sources of authority (parents, aunts, uncles, etc.) say to conform to group norms. What’s driving me nuts is that “identity politics” is about fa…

This is a straw man. I've never been talking about the people who aren't bothered by the jokes in question here because they're not personally carrying the baggage I'm referring to. I've talking about the people who are. Those people exist and are numerous, and they seek out and appreciate the allies they have on their side.

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

#553

Post by smaryjerry »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #544
smaryjerry wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

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.

Again, as I said that is one persons opinion who through either ignorance, pressure, or bias will choose a political side. We have former military generals claiming there were aliens found but one person’s claim while it makes a story for an article does not represent evidence.

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

#554

Post by smaryjerry »

tptacek wrote: post #536
smaryjerry wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

You can't talk to people like this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I was referring to the bias ignorance and pressure that causes there to always be someone on the opposing side of a political topic as per his claim that one executives statement on Kaepernick was true. If you will also note he called me blatantly dishonest when he in fact has provable lies in his statement which he admits.

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

#555

Post by smaryjerry »

otterley wrote: post #538
smaryjerry wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Federal case law is essentially law. This is all besides my original point that abortion debates are not cancel culture but a political argument. But yes absolutely I’ll admit I was wrong if it ever happens.

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

#556

Post by rootusrootus »

phs318u wrote: post #404
rootusrootus wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unnecessarily upsetting them That's just the first half good advice. Don't be a jerk when you talk, don't be a jerk when you listen. Don't try to offend people unnecessarily, and don't be offended unnecessarily. As soon as you decided that the only metric which matters is when someone is unnecessarily upset, offended, or whatever, everything was lost. In that case nobody can say anything .

Please define being a jerk, what constitutes offence, and the distinction between unnecessary and (implied) necessary offence.

Intent.

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

#557

Post by coward123 »

I refuse to pay for either NYT or WaPo subscriptions specifically because of the OpEd pages. It's one thing to encourage provocation for the purpose of social dialog, but the abject lies and violence that both publications have allowed onto their pages are inexcusable. The NYT in particular has been given this reverent status by the left that it just doesn't deserve - it isn't your paper, they don't speak for you, their goal is no different than Fox News, IE: to attract paying eyeballs.

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

#558

Post by Forgeties79 »

smaryjerry wrote: post #553
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.

Again, as I said that is one persons opinion who through either ignorance, pressure, or bias will choose a political side. We have former military generals claiming there were aliens found but one person’s claim while it makes a story for an article does not represent evidence.

To compare a former exec listing a very possible situation to the ravings about aliens is, once against, blatantly dishonest.

To get back to the original point, I don't know what to tell you. If you think cancelling is a tactic only implemented by the left, then there is a very thick layer of irony in your "one persons opinion who through either ignorance, pressure, or bias will choose a political side" line.

Have a good one man.

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

#559

Post by [deleted] »

smaryjerry wrote: post #555
otterley wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Federal case law is essentially law. This is all besides my original point that abortion debates are not cancel culture but a political argument. But yes absolutely I’ll admit I was wrong if it ever happens.

[deleted]

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

#560

Post by rootusrootus »

otterley wrote: post #319
rootusrootus wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unnecessarily upsetting them That's just the first half good advice. Don't be a jerk when you talk, don't be a jerk when you listen. Don't try to offend people unnecessarily, and don't be offended unnecessarily. As soon as you decided that the only metric which matters is when someone is unnecessarily upset, offended, or whatever, everything was lost. In that case nobody can say anything .

That unfairly burdens the target of the joke. And if you take pains not to offend your work colleagues, then the "don't be offended unnecessarily" half is far less likely to be an issue.

> if you take pains not to offend your work colleagues, then the "don't be offended unnecessarily" half is far less likely to be an issue.

I sort of agree, but not to the point where I think you can disregard the second half of the advice. For every person in the wild who is acting in bad faith, trolling, trying to be offensive, there is someone else on a hair trigger who takes offense to everything, who reads into every statement an underlying insult.

Post reply on HN