Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Being Blacklisted

aaronkunin.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 201 posts

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#81

Post by pochamago »

walrus01 wrote: post #54
josephg wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He expects that by calling the publishers of some journal "craven" and "scared", that he's going to elicit a reversal of their decision Thats not my read of the situation. I agree that if his goal was to convince the authors, it would make sense for him to be more accomodating. And it wouldn't make sense to call them out in public. But thats not his goal here. To my eyes, this piece takes a shot at the culture whic…

What I find amusing is that the same center-right and right-wing mouthpieces that complain the loudest about 'cancel culture' have themselves been deeply involved in attempting to 'cancel' things for the past 40 years, anything they dislike or find distasteful, a random assortment of which includes. rap music and any music with "vulgar" lyrics (PARENTAL WARNING labels on CDs) harry potter (satanic magic messages offe…

Shouldn't that make us more sympathetic to the issue? In all the fights over those issues it was a constant among the left that free discussion is vital. Was that really just an attractive political stance, held only until it was no longer useful? I don't want to believe that, I have to believe that people were sincere and we can return to it as a universal principle.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#82

Post by seneca »

schoen wrote: post #40
yew wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? I've just read the article. It's a collection of crypto-fascist dog whistles about race; it barely merits being called an opinion. (It is an example of why the academic personnel pool needs the thorough cleaning it's currently getting.) Anyone who declined to associate with the author would be right to do so. There aren't many people who don't understand what this kind of article is really about. The Chicago Rev…

I would most likely have downvoted your reply if I'd encountered it in any other context, but I upvoted it because you were replying to an invitation to defend the magazine's decision that purported to be curious about why someone would defend it. I really don't like the pattern of asking "I'm curious whether anyone would seriously advocate opinion X that's controversial in this community, and why" and then downvotin…

In general I agree with you, baiting people into stating an unpopular argument and then dog piling kills conversation.

That being said, I downvoted that particular response because there's no argument being made. It's the typical gnashing of teeth and hurling of slurs you see everywhere on the internet, and is also harmful to a useful conversation.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#83

Post by betwixthewires »

walrus01 wrote: post #54
josephg wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He expects that by calling the publishers of some journal "craven" and "scared", that he's going to elicit a reversal of their decision Thats not my read of the situation. I agree that if his goal was to convince the authors, it would make sense for him to be more accomodating. And it wouldn't make sense to call them out in public. But thats not his goal here. To my eyes, this piece takes a shot at the culture whic…

What I find amusing is that the same center-right and right-wing mouthpieces that complain the loudest about 'cancel culture' have themselves been deeply involved in attempting to 'cancel' things for the past 40 years, anything they dislike or find distasteful, a random assortment of which includes. rap music and any music with "vulgar" lyrics (PARENTAL WARNING labels on CDs) harry potter (satanic magic messages offe…

I think you're deliberately grouping everyone critical of the utter insanity of the modern day "right wing" that way you can attack someone who isn't who you're arguing against without having to discuss their point. It's like people who immediately assume a pro lifer believes in god. They're not necessarily the same people. Tipper Gore isn't Sam Harris.

Judging by the list you wrote, you seem to be very much opposed to moral panics and moralistic censorship. I find it surprising that you're not concurring with the people you're responding to on this. I would've taken you for a liberal person.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#84

Post by ZephyrBlu »

schoen wrote: post #40
yew wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? I've just read the article. It's a collection of crypto-fascist dog whistles about race; it barely merits being called an opinion. (It is an example of why the academic personnel pool needs the thorough cleaning it's currently getting.) Anyone who declined to associate with the author would be right to do so. There aren't many people who don't understand what this kind of article is really about. The Chicago Rev…

I would most likely have downvoted your reply if I'd encountered it in any other context, but I upvoted it because you were replying to an invitation to defend the magazine's decision that purported to be curious about why someone would defend it. I really don't like the pattern of asking "I'm curious whether anyone would seriously advocate opinion X that's controversial in this community, and why" and then downvotin…

I think the comment has been downvoted because it does not seem to be in good faith and there is no substance to it.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#85

Post by [deleted] »

sneak wrote: post #37
ttt0 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's closer to "you know, I wish this hadn't been released and I've decided that no one should be able to sell their copies of it ." According to wsj: > Online marketplace eBay Inc. said it is working to prevent the resale of six Dr. Seuss books that were pulled earlier this week by the company in charge of the late author’s works because they contain offensive imagery.

eBay decided themselves they didn't want to be associated with it; the author's estate didn't dictate to them that nobody is allowed to trade in it. They're still on Amazon, of course, as are a bunch of racist bumper stickers and a billion other SKUs.

[deleted]

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#86

Post by ariabuckles »

hirundo wrote: post #12

Is there anyone that wants to defend this blacklisting of the author by the Chicago Review for writing this article [0]? That is, not to reconfirm that they do indeed have the right to do so, but to argue that they are right to do so? Maybe some of us can avoid this fate if we understand the grounds for it, since they decline to make it explicit. What did he say that was not just wrong, but so wrong that he should no…

It's a pretty standard anti-inclusivity rant (although it starts by attempting to position itself as more than such), and then ends with an anecdote/strawman (which is contrary to every notion of inclusivity advocacy that I've seen) to propose that those advocating for inclusivity are the real people who want segregation.

I think what a lot of the commenters are missing is that this article, and statements like "If I must revise my teaching to conform to a popular view of inclusivity that I do not share" have an impact on not just his research, but also sends a message to his students: that he doesn't whether they feel safe being there matters, and that they don't deserve to have representation in studied works.

I know a lot of people (mostly white, mostly men) don't think that's true, but these types of attitudes can easily allow harmful messages to fester in academic classrooms. Just because an idea is controversial doesn't mean it's worthy of debate. The idea that we should want more students to feel welcome in academia, and that we should study history and literature that has largely been ignored (or often, deliberately destroyed) is one such idea to many people.

So I know most of the people on this forum will disagree, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for an organization to say that they don't want their name associated with that.

The position in that article isn't a new or particularly interesting idea: it's been rehashed over and over, and studied, and it's an idea that many people have decided is harmful and they don't want to associate with it or people who continue to spread those ideas.

I probably don't have the eloquence to properly convey these thoughts, but there's a whole field out there that cares deeply about these things and has been working on making them better for, literally, centuries. In tech I often see people frustrated that the public doesn't understand what they're talking about when they discuss technologies (see the 5G conspiracy theories!). If you're interested in understanding why many people think doubling down on these ideas that inclusivity is in contradiction to good research/teaching/whatever, there's a whole field of literature out there to read up on that can help explain that. If you're in the US, one decent starting place is the history of black people in the US, and the history of women in the US. I've heard really good things about this series, for example: http://www.sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#87

Post by serf »

yew wrote: post #15
hirundo wrote: post #12

Is there anyone that wants to defend this blacklisting of the author by the Chicago Review for writing this article [0]? That is, not to reconfirm that they do indeed have the right to do so, but to argue that they are right to do so? Maybe some of us can avoid this fate if we understand the grounds for it, since they decline to make it explicit. What did he say that was not just wrong, but so wrong that he should no…

Yes? I've just read the article. It's a collection of crypto-fascist dog whistles about race; it barely merits being called an opinion. (It is an example of why the academic personnel pool needs the thorough cleaning it's currently getting.) Anyone who declined to associate with the author would be right to do so. There aren't many people who don't understand what this kind of article is really about. The Chicago Rev…

'crypto-fascism' and the concept that anyone can easily identify 'dog-whistle politics' strikes me as a somewhat McCarthy-style method by which to coerce a group of people to condemn an individual without much need for explanation as to why they should be condemned -- even if the individual being condemned is pleading against the perceived hostile opinion.

It seems to be a very trendy right now.

It's sort of a perfect technique to mention in a thread about blacklisting.

"We don't care if you say you're not a member of the Communist party; look at who you hang out with and the opinions you write -- we have read between the lines and understand the secret message held within your action, and we know that you're a communist."

Pretty scary stuff.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#88

Post by ttt0 »

walrus01 wrote: post #54
josephg wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He expects that by calling the publishers of some journal "craven" and "scared", that he's going to elicit a reversal of their decision Thats not my read of the situation. I agree that if his goal was to convince the authors, it would make sense for him to be more accomodating. And it wouldn't make sense to call them out in public. But thats not his goal here. To my eyes, this piece takes a shot at the culture whic…

What I find amusing is that the same center-right and right-wing mouthpieces that complain the loudest about 'cancel culture' have themselves been deeply involved in attempting to 'cancel' things for the past 40 years, anything they dislike or find distasteful, a random assortment of which includes. rap music and any music with "vulgar" lyrics (PARENTAL WARNING labels on CDs) harry potter (satanic magic messages offe…

What's even more amusing is that the right views the left as hypocrites too, because they were previously against it. Seems like everyone is a hypocrite.

I was convinced that it's a good thing that the right is most impacted by the censorship, as the right was more supportive of capitalism and it caused them to notice some of its problems, while the left is already against it. Needless to say, it didn't turned out exactly how I expected and apparently we're bound to repeat this vicious cycle forever, only normalizing the worst possible tactics along the way.

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#89

Post by adolph »

afutd wrote: post #50
BitwiseFool wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's even a movement to replace the term "Blacklist" with a less problematic words such as denylist or blocklist. Of course, "Whitelist" is just as problematic - if not moreso! - and should be replaced with allowlist or safelist. Edit: The etymology of these words have nothing to do with skincolor, Blackness or Whiteness.

Although I agree with the thrust of your edit, I’d actually be okay with making the swap if a black person from an underprivileged background told me that terms made him uncomfortable. But somehow it’s always a white woman from a privileged background that’s insisting we say allowlist or Latinx.

The white savior industrial complex is an important brand influencer segment. This is significant emotional labor they perform for “the is it Poles?”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_savior

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47245/the-cambridge-l...

Re: On Being Blacklisted

#90

Post by marshmallow_12 »

dkdk8283 wrote: post #45

Let’s please collectively agree to abolish cancel culture. Opposing ideas cause growth. Singular ideologies do not lead to growth or change.

Abolish is a synonym of cancel. Culture is the product of collective agreements.

You Sir, are in fact suggesting we create a cancel, cancel culture.

Instead of eradicating the evil, you are embracing it.

Post reply on HN