3 ms·

Assuming that he started out not liking cancel culture and then searched around for how to denounce them, what's wrong with it? I'm generally opposed to cancel

Assuming that he started out not liking cancel culture and then searched around for how to denounce them, what's wrong with it? I'm generally opposed to cancel culture but generally can't be bothered to clearly articulate my objections, i.e. search around for the best words to denounce them. I think it's generally positive that some people, such as pg, are willing to articulate their objections to cancel culture.

NoodleIncident 6y ago
Well, I don't like being lied to. In July of 2020, has there actually been a lot of talk about privilege? Is that really where this thought process started? It seems way more likely that he started by complaining about cancel culture, so the beginning of this essay seems dishonest to me. While I'm replying, I might as well link the comic I was referencing for anyone who hasn't seen it. This is what I think of whenever someone starts getting really abstract about free speech or not being allowed to say things instead of clearly articulating what they actually mean: https://imgur.com/YWK9z19 https://imgur.com/YWK9z19
- emiliobumachar 6y ago
  You seem to be going from "There has been a lot of talk about privilege lately" to "this thought process started by thinking about the concept of privilege [not actual quote]". The link isn't obvious to me. >In July of 2020, has there actually been a lot of talk about privilege? The internet is big, it's safe to assume there's talk about privilege non-stop in some corners of it. Of course, there's nothing wrong with not having seen it. Anecdotally, I've seen this 2 days ago here on HN without looking for it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23821125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23821125
indigo945 6y ago
The problem is that pg is not honest about what his problem with cancel culture actually is. Clearly, his problem is that he is privileged and sexist, aware of it and afraid of being cancelled, or rather, of receiving criticism about his statements and beliefs (as he has in the past). But what he is arguing is something entirely different. He's not searching for words to argue for his position (he has none), he's searching for words that misrepresent and denigrate his opponents. You can see this easily not just by how he abuses the word "privilege", but by how he asserts that any position that is not his is part of an "orthodoxy". This would only make sense if there was a set of positions that a large majority of people could agree on, which would then form that orthodoxy, but as pg himself well knows, that set of positions doesn't exist -- after all, the POTUS himself is anything but "woke"! The only other way the term "orthodoxy" makes sense here, then, is understanding "orthodoxy" to not mean an agreed-upon, but a proscribed set of beliefs, such as in the Orthodox church. Such a set of beliefs, then, would require someone in power who outlines and instates it. That idea -- that there is a cabal of people who decide about which opinions are acceptable or "orthodox" or not -- is a dangerous conspiracy theory. More than that, it is an important element of contemporary alt-right discourses, which also often focus on this idea that there are some vague people in vague power which make it so that you "can't say some things anymore", be those powerholders "Cultural Marxists", (((Jewish))) or otherwise. So yes, I agree that it is positive when people articulate their objections to an opinion. However, those articulations should actually express an opinion that is being held, rather than form a smoke-and-mirrors defense against having to say out loud what you know will get you pushback. A dogwhistle is not an argument.

NoodleIncident 6y ago

Well, I don't like being lied to. In July of 2020, has there actually been a lot of talk about privilege? Is that really where this thought process started? It seems way more likely that he started by complaining about cancel culture, so the beginning of this essay seems dishonest to me. While I'm replying, I might as well link the comic I was referencing for anyone who hasn't seen it. This is what I think of whenever someone starts getting really abstract about free speech or not being allowed to say things instead of clearly articulating what they actually mean: https://imgur.com/YWK9z19 https://imgur.com/YWK9z19

emiliobumachar 6y ago
You seem to be going from "There has been a lot of talk about privilege lately" to "this thought process started by thinking about the concept of privilege [not actual quote]". The link isn't obvious to me. >In July of 2020, has there actually been a lot of talk about privilege? The internet is big, it's safe to assume there's talk about privilege non-stop in some corners of it. Of course, there's nothing wrong with not having seen it. Anecdotally, I've seen this 2 days ago here on HN without looking for it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23821125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23821125

indigo945 6y ago

The problem is that pg is not honest about what his problem with cancel culture actually is. Clearly, his problem is that he is privileged and sexist, aware of it and afraid of being cancelled, or rather, of receiving criticism about his statements and beliefs (as he has in the past). But what he is arguing is something entirely different. He's not searching for words to argue for his position (he has none), he's searching for words that misrepresent and denigrate his opponents. You can see this easily not just by how he abuses the word "privilege", but by how he asserts that any position that is not his is part of an "orthodoxy". This would only make sense if there was a set of positions that a large majority of people could agree on, which would then form that orthodoxy, but as pg himself well knows, that set of positions doesn't exist -- after all, the POTUS himself is anything but "woke"! The only other way the term "orthodoxy" makes sense here, then, is understanding "orthodoxy" to not mean an agreed-upon, but a proscribed set of beliefs, such as in the Orthodox church. Such a set of beliefs, then, would require someone in power who outlines and instates it. That idea -- that there is a cabal of people who decide about which opinions are acceptable or "orthodox" or not -- is a dangerous conspiracy theory. More than that, it is an important element of contemporary alt-right discourses, which also often focus on this idea that there are some vague people in vague power which make it so that you "can't say some things anymore", be those powerholders "Cultural Marxists", (((Jewish))) or otherwise. So yes, I agree that it is positive when people articulate their objections to an opinion. However, those articulations should actually express an opinion that is being held, rather than form a smoke-and-mirrors defense against having to say out loud what you know will get you pushback. A dogwhistle is not an argument.