Live data from Hacker News

Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times

popehat.substack.com

591–600 of 633 posts

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

#591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (if you are) correct about racial unfairness in the criminal justice system (which you are not) I think if we can't agree here, we are unlikely to agree on much of anything at all. > you are arguing that biased outcomes in criminal law are the intentional outcome of right-wingers targeting their political enemies (who are black people, apparently?) Yes. And closer to scapegoat/target than enemy, but sure. > even if…

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.

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

#592
post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that has aged poorly. All of the stories he insists should be walked back have been confirmed. Manafort and Flynn were both pardoned by Trump despite definitely having communication with Russian agents and lying about it. Roger Stone was also convicted for his role in coordinating the DNC email release with GRU via WikiLeaks. Russian agents visited Trump Tower to sell the campaign emails. Trump lied about his bu…

The only thing that has 'aged poorly' is the #russiagate debacle, which as a result has seriously undermined the credibility of what's left of the legacy media due to their choices to promote endless conspiracy ideas which turned out to be untrue. This has nothing to do with the endless 'mastercard or visa' team sport that is US politics, which is stitched up by the DNC & RNC and their media so no new parties or poli…

Neither you nor Taibbi have actually called out any mistakes the mainstream media has made. They reported accurately. The story resulted in impeachment. Taibbi attacked a straw man. We don't need independent media, we need honest, factual reporting be it independent or otherwise. Taibbi isn't it. He didn't uncover any facts, just sit on the sidelines and cast stones.

It is unquestionable that Russia tried to influence the election. They hacked the DNC and released it via WikiLeaks. They spread disinformation in Trump's favor. And that they invaded Ukraine. Trump at every turn supported Putin and hindered Ukraine. And so did Taibbi for his part. And then he says this story wasn't worth reporting because it didn't result in a criminal conviction?

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

#593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we should lose sight of just how batshit insane the NYT editorial was. We can continue to talk about Cancel Culture, but the opening assertion of the editorial was that we have a right to, "...speak [our] minds and voice [our] opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned." That's gobsmackingly wrong. It's the kind of sentence that, to me at least, grinds my mental gears to a halt. I just..…

From TFA: > Americans don’t have, and have never had, any right to be free of shaming or shunning. The First Amendment protects our right to speak free of government interference. It does not protect us from other people saying mean things in response to our speech. First, the term "free speech" is overloaded-- it means a legal right to speak free of government interference, and it also means a cultural environment o…

White didn't conflate anything. I'm pretty sure White understand the difference between free speech and Free Speech (shoot, he even said so in the article) White was basically saying we need to come to an agreement on a definition of Cancel Culture. And he suggests the messaging is about the disproportionate response to speech.

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

#594

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 don’t. What happens in practice is that people get upset but choose not to make a big deal out of it. They recognise that we are all different and have different opinions and values. Most people are anti-fragile and can handle being a bit upset. Expecting the world to conform to your values is an example of extreme narcissism.

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

#595
post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You are right other conservatives won’t fight against it but it is also only religious conservatives that support it, at least banning abortion per the Texas law. In my own experience in a heavily democrat area, every single democrat I’ve met also support a ban on abortion after a certain period of time and the debate is more over how long or what point after conception until it should be banned.. that point is often…

1) The law compels people to out abortions and circumvents the law of the land - I.e. the SCOTUS ruling - by forcing it into a civil court matter. You seriously don’t see the issue there? How about democrats pass a parallel law where instead of abortions it’s because you used hate speech? How would you feel about that?

2) 6 weeks is not a long time. Plenty of people don’t find out their pregnant until 4-6 weeks, many later than that. You think it’s right that they can be forced to make that decision with only a few days to consider it? Or worse, that they have to leave the state to get one because they’re past 6 weeks? There are so many problems with this.

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

#596

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.

People in practice choose who they want to be with based on shared values and behaviour. I can’t stand hypocrites, religions fanatics, Trump lovers, or fanatical left/right leaning people. So I choose not to spend time with people like that. However I am not going to insist that they change their behaviour because I get upset listening to them. That would be extremely narcissistic of me.

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

#597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep exactly. Insisting that the world has to change so that you don’t get upset is crazy.

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

#598
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taibbi has mostly torpedoed his credibility with Russian apoligism. Him and Glenn Greenwald.

Strongly disagree. Taibbi & Greenwald along with Michael Tracey (who is currently in Poland on the Ukranian border) are some of the few independent journalists with the cojones to take on the establishment, who spend a huge amount of time smearing and discrediting them because they are impartial and provide invaluable commentary on all sides.

That is the most embarrassing thing that anyone has ever admitted on this website, congrats dude.

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

#599

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 some religious people might be upset), all religions, all expressions of art etc. That is impossible to do in practice.

Why the downvote? Are you (for example) saying that religion should be banned because there might be somebody out there who gets upset when religious people try to force society to conform to their values? Or that right leaning people should be banned from expressing their opining because left leaning people get upset listening to their arguments? Really?

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

#600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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

It’s impossible to talk about these groups separately because our norms and policies around race have costs and benefits which must be balanced across all the minorities who will be on the receiving end. Maybe some people will be heartened by their white professors standing up and declaring themselves “gatekeepers of white supremacy” (https://freebeacon.com/campus/northwestern-law-administrator...) but a lot of other “people of color” are going to find such treatment othering and uncomfortable.

There’s also the very real risk that all this race consciousness holds back the progress of minorities. I know progressives imagine a utopian future where they’ve vanquished racism but people of color have to live in the real world. And looking back at my own life (growing up as a brown guy in Virginia), I don’t think it would have been better if everyone had been super conscious about my skin color versus their’s.

Given the potential costs to all members of minority groups, we can’t just adopt the most extreme standards in deference to unspecified “numerous” people carrying unspecified “baggage.” If we’re going to change the norms around how white people relate to minorities, we will have to take account of how everybody affected feels about that. Mostly white progressives knocking over tables and demanding extreme policies actually gets in the way of minorities getting to control how society treats them.

> they seek out and appreciate the allies they have on their side.

White “allyship” is problematic and paternalistic: https://musaalgharbi.com/2020/05/15/definition-racist-action... (“Rather than actually dismantling white supremacy or meaningfully empowering people of color, efforts often seem to be oriented towards consolidating social and cultural capital in the hands of the ‘good’ whites.”)

It’s an agency problem: white “allies” don’t suffer the harms they’re trying to address, and for the most part don’t bear the cost of unintended consequences. For example, as the dad of brown kids, I find that a lot of “anti-racist education” risks putting brown kids in a mindset that their success or failure depends on factors outside their control. By contrast, even if such education makes white kids feel guilty, it simultaneously tells them that they’re the ones with agency and power. The mostly white people advocating these educational policies for the most part don’t have to deal with the consequences to kids that might result.

Likewise, white progressives can freely engage in rhetoric and hostility to other whites and don’t have to suffer the consequences of any backlash. Frankly I’m perplexed why—if progressives think white people are as racist as they say—that they think it’s a good idea to constantly call half the country “white supremacists,” send them to the back of the vaccine line, etc.

Post reply on HN