7 ms·

You are right. My apologies if I implied this only happens on "the left". There's a lot of context in this thread so I didn't feel the need to caveat. However,

by dcow 9y ago

You are right. My apologies if I implied this only happens on "the left". There's a lot of context in this thread so I didn't feel the need to caveat. However, "social lynching" is not an absurd term. While everyone has a right to express their opinion and face the consequences thereof, social lynching occurs when people mob together and demand, pressure, or otherwise effectively execute physical consequences for a utterance of speech that is otherwise entirely legal and often totally unrelated to the consequences. Losing your job because a group of people found out you donated to a conservative social/political group is an example of social lynching (in this context). No, they didn't kill the person, but there is a real impact on that person's lively hood and it can often mean the death of a career. I agree that speech is not consequence free, let the assholes be shamed, but when we start to cross realms and impact people's jobs, families, lively hoods, for simply holding other opinions, something else is happening. We're beyond the realm of speech and have entered the wold of actions.

telchar 9y ago
I would suggest trying to use a different term than "social lynching". It is a hyperbolic word that describes actions that are quite out of proportion with what might be called "actual lynching". Loss of a specific, typically rarified, job is far less consequential than death. Using that term is going ensure that a large portion of the population disregards your argument out of disgust (at the co-opting of a historically powerful word for political points). Use it if you like, but you should expect that it will lose you debates if you do. There is probably a different term you could come up with that would be better received.
- dcow 9y ago
  I hear you. What would you suggest instead?
  - telchar 9y ago
    That's a fair question. After a bit of thought the best I could come up with are, depending on situation: driven to professional exile ridden out on a [digital] rail digital skimmington pilloried [digitally/professionally] tarred and feathered
    - Cowsgomoo 9y ago
      How about ritual defamation? (http://serendipity.li/cda/ritual_defamation.htm http://serendipity.li/cda/ritual_defamation.htm)
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      How about simply "fired" or maybe for cases that go beyond being excluded from a single job "blacklisted". Those examples are all very hyperbolic, albeit less so than "lynched".
      - wpietri 9y ago
        Yeah, I think direct description of the actual events is the way to go. Especially when so often the actual event is something like, "felt uncomfortable after receiving public criticism".
        dcow 9y ago
        Enough with the snark. I am actually trying to listen to recommendations for better terms and you're deliberately not helping which is really making it hard for me to extend empathy here. (HN is generally a place for constructive intellectual commentary not petty frustrated juvenile crap.) I am not talking about people simply feeling uncomfortable. That should be abundantly clear by now. Or, we can chalk this one up to you misinterpreting the scope of events to which my initial comment refers...
wpietri 9y ago
I still think this term is ridiculous. You still haven't given any indication that you underand the weight of the term "lynching". If you'd like to, maybe start with this slim book, which I found sobering: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0933121180 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0933121180 The only example I can think of where someone lost their job due to a donation was Brendan Eich, whose political cause was changing the constitution to strip a civil right from LGBT people. You are worried about the effect on his family, but he was literally trying to harm hundreds of thousands of LGBT families, and the LGBT families at Mozilla were very reasonably afraid of more direct harm.) Why are you concerned about only one kind of family? (And I'll note that if his career has been harmed, it's hard to measure. He's the CEO of a company with $42m in funding, which doesn't sound like death to me.) Your taxonomy is also suspicious. The problem is not people having opinions; it's them acting upon them. And make no mistake, political speech is action. The whole point of it is to change society. That's why we protect it so fiercely under law: its enormous power to shape democracy for the better. More than that, your dudgeon here is anti-freedom. If people don't want to work with Eich, who are you to tell them that they have to? He gets his freedom of speech; they get their freedom of association. If you don't like that, you get to exercise your rights to speech and association. Of course, if you really wanted to pursue that, you'd have to end at-will employment. It would be an interesting world where nobody would be fired for a political opinion. But it would require absolutely massive government intervention in employment, so I doubt you'd find many conservative backers.
- dcow 9y ago
  > I still think this term is ridiculous I'm trying to think of a better term. The point is the concept. And in my defense the Wikipedia definition aligns with my usage of the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching. > The only example I can think of where someone lost their job due to a donation was Brendan Eich Yeah that was just an example. Another similar scenario I can think of off the top of my head: the president of the University of Missouri was coerced into resigning because he said something that equated to, "I don't believe in institutional racism". I'm not trying to paint doom and gloom or anything I was responding with the counter argument to, "intolerance wants a voice", which is (naturally by now), "only an intolerant person would condone silencing in the first place".

by dcow 9y ago

telchar 9y ago

I would suggest trying to use a different term than "social lynching". It is a hyperbolic word that describes actions that are quite out of proportion with what might be called "actual lynching". Loss of a specific, typically rarified, job is far less consequential than death. Using that term is going ensure that a large portion of the population disregards your argument out of disgust (at the co-opting of a historically powerful word for political points). Use it if you like, but you should expect that it will lose you debates if you do. There is probably a different term you could come up with that would be better received.

dcow 9y ago
I hear you. What would you suggest instead?
- telchar 9y ago
  That's a fair question. After a bit of thought the best I could come up with are, depending on situation: driven to professional exile ridden out on a [digital] rail digital skimmington pilloried [digitally/professionally] tarred and feathered
  - Cowsgomoo 9y ago
    How about ritual defamation? (http://serendipity.li/cda/ritual_defamation.htm http://serendipity.li/cda/ritual_defamation.htm)
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    How about simply "fired" or maybe for cases that go beyond being excluded from a single job "blacklisted". Those examples are all very hyperbolic, albeit less so than "lynched".
    - wpietri 9y ago
      Yeah, I think direct description of the actual events is the way to go. Especially when so often the actual event is something like, "felt uncomfortable after receiving public criticism".
      - dcow 9y ago
        Enough with the snark. I am actually trying to listen to recommendations for better terms and you're deliberately not helping which is really making it hard for me to extend empathy here. (HN is generally a place for constructive intellectual commentary not petty frustrated juvenile crap.) I am not talking about people simply feeling uncomfortable. That should be abundantly clear by now. Or, we can chalk this one up to you misinterpreting the scope of events to which my initial comment refers...

wpietri 9y ago

I still think this term is ridiculous. You still haven't given any indication that you underand the weight of the term "lynching". If you'd like to, maybe start with this slim book, which I found sobering: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0933121180 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0933121180 The only example I can think of where someone lost their job due to a donation was Brendan Eich, whose political cause was changing the constitution to strip a civil right from LGBT people. You are worried about the effect on his family, but he was literally trying to harm hundreds of thousands of LGBT families, and the LGBT families at Mozilla were very reasonably afraid of more direct harm.) Why are you concerned about only one kind of family? (And I'll note that if his career has been harmed, it's hard to measure. He's the CEO of a company with $42m in funding, which doesn't sound like death to me.) Your taxonomy is also suspicious. The problem is not people having opinions; it's them acting upon them. And make no mistake, political speech is action. The whole point of it is to change society. That's why we protect it so fiercely under law: its enormous power to shape democracy for the better. More than that, your dudgeon here is anti-freedom. If people don't want to work with Eich, who are you to tell them that they have to? He gets his freedom of speech; they get their freedom of association. If you don't like that, you get to exercise your rights to speech and association. Of course, if you really wanted to pursue that, you'd have to end at-will employment. It would be an interesting world where nobody would be fired for a political opinion. But it would require absolutely massive government intervention in employment, so I doubt you'd find many conservative backers.

dcow 9y ago
> I still think this term is ridiculous I'm trying to think of a better term. The point is the concept. And in my defense the Wikipedia definition aligns with my usage of the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching. > The only example I can think of where someone lost their job due to a donation was Brendan Eich Yeah that was just an example. Another similar scenario I can think of off the top of my head: the president of the University of Missouri was coerced into resigning because he said something that equated to, "I don't believe in institutional racism". I'm not trying to paint doom and gloom or anything I was responding with the counter argument to, "intolerance wants a voice", which is (naturally by now), "only an intolerant person would condone silencing in the first place".