4 ms·

Love that this article is flagged now, too. Maybe it's ironic - an article from NY Times (liberal bastion), "cancelled" for discussing cancellation in a neutral

Love that this article is flagged now, too. Maybe it's ironic - an article from NY Times (liberal bastion), "cancelled" for discussing cancellation in a neutral light?

KozmoNau7 7y ago
You mean "milquetoast centrist" and "oh those poor intolerant conservatives aren't allowed to be intolerant anymore", right?
- dannykwells 7y ago
  This fundamentally comes down to a difference in opinion: do you change minds by rejecting people and making them outcasts (your approach, I'd guess) or continuing a dialogue while maintaining your principles? The former approach, um, isn't working (even if it might make you feel warm and fuzzy inside for being morally righteous).
  - cazum 7y ago
    The latter approach certainly hasn't worked either. Look at the rise of white fascism in America. It grew out of the free-speech open dialogue wild west internet (4chan, 8chan etc) and became so radical that it's racked up quite a body count thus far. I don't think cancellation is about changing the person-being-canceled's mind on a given opinion. I believe it functions entirely to signal to the rest of society and culture that such positions and actions are unacceptable.
    - dannykwells 7y ago
      But like, that's not working because the approach isn't being used judiciously. Weinstein was cancelled, as are YouTubers who cancel them selves. Its used when someone messes up a pronoun, and when someone is a serial abuser of women for 30 years. So the term and the approach is broken. If everyone can be accused, without evidence, of anything and end up being cancelled, that is sending a signal. Just not the one you want.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      > Look at the rise of white fascism in America. It grew out of the free-speech open dialogue wild west internet (4chan, 8chan etc) and became so radical that it's racked up quite a body count thus far. This is incredibly misinformed. White fascism in the US predates the internet[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_in_North_America#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_in_North_America#Unite...
  - KozmoNau7 7y ago
    Making people outcasts for their shitty opinions is a historically proven method. Drive them out, deplatform them, make it harder for them to spread their views anywhere the "normies" will see them. Isolate then and do not let them group together. Social stigmatization is powerful tool, and only became less effective when the internet allowed scumbags from all over the world to meet virtually, instead of being rightfully isolated. Dialogue does not work on these scumbags, because they don't care about debate or the truth. All they want is a platform to spread their views and to spout one liners to "OWN and DESTROY" their opponents. They will lie and lie again to reinforce their supporters' prejudices. We need to make racists and fascists afraid of showing their faces again. Don't cancel people for being jerks or saying a few stupid things sometime in the past. Those people mentioned in the article are far far beyond that forgivable level.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      > Making people outcasts for their shitty opinions is a historically proven method. Could you give a example of this method being successful? If it's a "historically proven method" surely there are some examples of it being successful. Lets look at this in reverse. If we (liberals) were kicked off Reddit/Hacker News/Facebook, would you just give up demanding tolerance? Or would you get angry, find/create your own community, and campaign for politicians who support your ideals? If this strategy wouldn't work on you, why do you think it will work on conservatives?
    - dang 7y ago
      Please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN. It isn't what this site is for, it's tedious, and it destroys the intellectual curiosity that it is for. For that reason, we ban accounts that do it. We've had to ask you this before. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - KozmoNau7 7y ago
        If you check my posts from the last 24 hours, they have all been downvoted and probably flagged after these posts, despite being completely unrelated to this discussion and previously upvoted. You have a serious dogpiling and retaliatory downvoting/flagging problem on HN, and the sooner you realize it, the better. There is a definite right-libertarian bias on HN, whether you want to acknowledge that or not. Everything not toeing that line is attacked and downvoted. Respectfully, I will post as I see fit. Website fake karma points are meaningless.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  You do realize that conservatives are still allowed to be intolerant, right? All your attitude achieves is that it ensures that intolerant people never hear real arguments against intolerance that might change their mind, so they go and vote for Trump. What you're doing is leading to Trump's re-election.
kbjjkgvg 7y ago
The NYT literally supported the Iraq war. They aren't remotely left.

Love that this article is flagged now, too. Maybe it's ironic - an article from NY Times (liberal bastion), "cancelled" for discussing cancellation in a neutral light?

KozmoNau7 7y ago

You mean "milquetoast centrist" and "oh those poor intolerant conservatives aren't allowed to be intolerant anymore", right?

dannykwells 7y ago
This fundamentally comes down to a difference in opinion: do you change minds by rejecting people and making them outcasts (your approach, I'd guess) or continuing a dialogue while maintaining your principles? The former approach, um, isn't working (even if it might make you feel warm and fuzzy inside for being morally righteous).
- cazum 7y ago
  The latter approach certainly hasn't worked either. Look at the rise of white fascism in America. It grew out of the free-speech open dialogue wild west internet (4chan, 8chan etc) and became so radical that it's racked up quite a body count thus far. I don't think cancellation is about changing the person-being-canceled's mind on a given opinion. I believe it functions entirely to signal to the rest of society and culture that such positions and actions are unacceptable.
  - dannykwells 7y ago
    But like, that's not working because the approach isn't being used judiciously. Weinstein was cancelled, as are YouTubers who cancel them selves. Its used when someone messes up a pronoun, and when someone is a serial abuser of women for 30 years. So the term and the approach is broken. If everyone can be accused, without evidence, of anything and end up being cancelled, that is sending a signal. Just not the one you want.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > Look at the rise of white fascism in America. It grew out of the free-speech open dialogue wild west internet (4chan, 8chan etc) and became so radical that it's racked up quite a body count thus far. This is incredibly misinformed. White fascism in the US predates the internet[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_in_North_America#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_in_North_America#Unite...
- KozmoNau7 7y ago
  Making people outcasts for their shitty opinions is a historically proven method. Drive them out, deplatform them, make it harder for them to spread their views anywhere the "normies" will see them. Isolate then and do not let them group together. Social stigmatization is powerful tool, and only became less effective when the internet allowed scumbags from all over the world to meet virtually, instead of being rightfully isolated. Dialogue does not work on these scumbags, because they don't care about debate or the truth. All they want is a platform to spread their views and to spout one liners to "OWN and DESTROY" their opponents. They will lie and lie again to reinforce their supporters' prejudices. We need to make racists and fascists afraid of showing their faces again. Don't cancel people for being jerks or saying a few stupid things sometime in the past. Those people mentioned in the article are far far beyond that forgivable level.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > Making people outcasts for their shitty opinions is a historically proven method. Could you give a example of this method being successful? If it's a "historically proven method" surely there are some examples of it being successful. Lets look at this in reverse. If we (liberals) were kicked off Reddit/Hacker News/Facebook, would you just give up demanding tolerance? Or would you get angry, find/create your own community, and campaign for politicians who support your ideals? If this strategy wouldn't work on you, why do you think it will work on conservatives?
  - dang 7y ago
    Please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN. It isn't what this site is for, it's tedious, and it destroys the intellectual curiosity that it is for. For that reason, we ban accounts that do it. We've had to ask you this before. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - KozmoNau7 7y ago
      If you check my posts from the last 24 hours, they have all been downvoted and probably flagged after these posts, despite being completely unrelated to this discussion and previously upvoted. You have a serious dogpiling and retaliatory downvoting/flagging problem on HN, and the sooner you realize it, the better. There is a definite right-libertarian bias on HN, whether you want to acknowledge that or not. Everything not toeing that line is attacked and downvoted. Respectfully, I will post as I see fit. Website fake karma points are meaningless.
kerkeslager 7y ago
You do realize that conservatives are still allowed to be intolerant, right? All your attitude achieves is that it ensures that intolerant people never hear real arguments against intolerance that might change their mind, so they go and vote for Trump. What you're doing is leading to Trump's re-election.

kbjjkgvg 7y ago

The NYT literally supported the Iraq war. They aren't remotely left.