9 ms·

Politically-correct witch-hunt is killing free speech

60 points by phonon 6y ago

ECA_stax 6y ago
>Politically-correct witch-hunt is killing free speech I have yet to see an example of this, even though people complain about it all the time. I've only seen it "kill" careers of people who consistently spout hateful views of women, LGBTQIAA2S+, and minorities. If someone could provide me an example of "PoliTicAllY COrRecT cuLtUrE" killing someone who doesn't fall into this criteria, I'd be happy to hear examples :)
- influx 6y ago
  What are your thoughts on this: “ David Shor, an analyst at Democratic polling firm Civis Analytics, tweeted a study that concluded, "race riots reduced Democratic vote share." That study was probably accurate. Obviously, rioting alienates voters. But the mob attacked Shor. "Come get your boy," one tweeted. His bosses did. Even though Shor issued a groveling apology, he was fired.”
  - eesmith 6y ago
    FWIW, here are my thoughts. 1) What is a "race riot"? Definitions are important. Should we call it the Tulsa Massacre or the Tulsa Race Riot? And does the choice of term reflect your view? 2) Are there any race riots going on now? Which events are race riots and which are not? My reading of the history of the topic is that "race riot" was the term used by whites to describe resistance by minorities to white oppression, as in the Tulsa example above. 3) Why did Shor decide to characterize the linked-to paper http://www.omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf http://www.omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf as providing information on "race riot"s? The referenced paper uses the term "race riot" twice, both when referencing the works of other people. Instead, it uses the description "black-led protests" and proposes that "nonviolent activism, particularly when met with state or vigilante repression, drove media coverage, framing, Congressional speech and public opinion on civil rights." which it juxtaposes with "Protester-initiated violence". If we accept the narrative that the violence of many of the current protests are the results of state-initiated repression, then do those protests fall in the first category or the second? Or neither, in which case the study isn't relevant. Note that if we use the definition of "Protester-initiated violence" then if we call it the Tulsa Race Riot then it's clearly a race riot initiated by white protestors. (One of many, I'll add.) Is the implication that all black-lead protests with protester-initiated violence should be characterized as a "race riot"? 4) You write "rioting alienates voters". Is that really true? I assume that white-lead protests with protester-initiated violence against non-whites are also race riots. Do you agree? Did the Tulsa Massacre/"Race Riot" alienate voters against the protesting whites? Did the Zoot Suit Riots alienate voters against Navy sailors? I .. don't think they did. In fact, I think it was quite the opposite. So I don't think your "obviously" is all that correct a summary. 5) How is the term "killing free speech" at all relevant? Over and over I see "cancel culture" applied to famous or influential people who have a loss of prestige based on what they wrote or said, but who are NOT CANCELED in any meaningful sense. Eg, at https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/david-shor-cancel-culture-2020-election-theory-polls.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/david-shor-cancel-cu... I read that "Shor is still consulting in Democratic politics, but he is no longer working for a firm that restricts his freedom to publicly opine." ECA_stax pointed out the hyperbole in using the term "kill". How do you get from "still consulting in Democratic politics" to "killed", or from "must conform to an employer's policies" to "killing free speech"?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  Uhlig as a recent example, Rowling which is raised in the article. This is trivial to name more examples.
  - Tiktaalik 6y ago
    You can't cancel a billionaire
    - vorpalhex 6y ago
      Sure you can. Cancelation has nothing to do with the amount of money you own, nor the color of your skin, your religious beliefs, nationality, gender identity, preferred pronouns, political lean or ice cream preferences.
      - Tiktaalik 6y ago
        How does Rowling get cancelled? How does she get deprived of her income? Deprived of a platform? Even if she is never allowed to write a book again, never invited on Oprah again, she has $1B dollars, which is more than any of us will ever see.
- linkmotif 6y ago
  Example: my life. My sister is woke: I can't really say what I think around her. Lots of my "friends" are woke: can't really talk to them. And mind you, my opinions aren't like of that guy who worked at Google and wrote "if women weren't bad at math, wouldn't they be working with computers?" or whatever that guy wrote. That's not my style of thinking. But my style of thinking is definitely not "woke" and therefore many of my thoughts would easily be categorized as hate speech or something by woke people. My vibe is the people who keep saying free speech these days isn't a problem are the same people who demand you only speak their orthodoxy. Always has, always will be.
  - lgleason 6y ago
    > "if women weren't bad at math, wouldn't they be working with computers?" That is not what he said. Read the memo. That said I agree with the rest of your points.
    - strken 6y ago
      The memo is 10 pages long and easy to read, or at least skim. I highly encourage anyone who has an opinion on it to at least read it. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
  - notmarkus 6y ago
    Sounds like you're pigeonholing Damore (of Google Memo fame) the same way that you don't want to be. You should read the original memo, and not an opinionated summary of it, it's not long. You may find that you were sold a lie about it.
    - kangnkodos 6y ago
      I've read the 10 page memo several times. I strongly disagree with his central ideas. However, I see them as political thoughts. Political thoughts I strongly disagree with. And the way I look at it, he was fired because of two things. 1) He had right wing political ideas which most people at Google strongly disagree with. 2) He wrote them down in a shared work forum. I've read second hand accounts of many unusual ideas which have been shared on internal Google forums. I agree with lots. I also disagree with lots, both left and right. But it was only the guy on the right who got fired. I'm not aware of anyone ever getting fired from Google for expressing far left political ideas. Let me know if I'm wrong on this. It's 2020. Today's lesson is that if I have an idea out of the accepted mainstream of my company, and they are on the right, then keep my mouth shut, or I'll be fired. If the idea is on the left, I can go ahead and share my thoughts.
- drak0n1c 6y ago
  This week in Seattle, a popular weatherman on local NPR radio was fired for a post on his personal blog, where he criticized violent rioters and compared the chilling effects of their targeted property damage to historical examples, such as Kristallnacht. He has no record of "hateful views of women, LGBTQIAA2S+, and minorities" and the post itself did not contain such either. The blog post in question: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/08/seattle-city-in-fear-can-be-restored.html https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/08/seattle-city-in-fear-...
  - mef 6y ago
    fwiw a quick googling of this guy shows that he’s had his weather segments cancelled before on other networks, and by his own admission it’s because he veers off topic from weather and into controversy (E.g. climate change denial)
  - AndrewDucker 6y ago
    Frankly, comparing anything to Kristallnacht which isn't actually related to the deliberate destruction of a people is offensive.
    - drak0n1c 6y ago
      People weren’t being deliberately destroyed at the early stages when Kristallnacht occurred either. I believe that’s the reasoning behind why prominent activists and lawmakers (rightly or wrongly) compared federal actions in Portland to the Nazi Gestapo and such a comparison wasn’t seen as offensive and they weren’t cancelled. The idea of recognizing warning signs. For the record, I’m Jewish and don’t see such comparisons as offensive. It’s good to try to learn from historical similarities, however faint.
    - Yetanfou 6y ago
      Abusing the word 'offensive' by applying it to expressions you happen to disagree with is a significant part of the problem. While you might not agree with the comparison to Kristallnacht that does not mean he caused you to be upset or hurt your feelings - which is the dictionary definition of the non-military meaning of the word offensive. He just said something you don't agree with, something which is bound to happen in a free society where free speech is the norm. The way the word offensive is used here is offensive in the military way since it is meant as an attack which is supposed to silence the person who spoke those words. Free speech should be defended not for those people you agree with but for those you disagree with.
- cannaceo 6y ago
  Terry Crews is the most popular example that comes to mind. Larry Summers is more controversial but same result.
- grandridge 6y ago
  Didn't say killing someone, said free speech. Girl was killed by blm because she said all lives matter. That is her right to say you don't get to decide what's right or wrong, hence free speech
- justchilly 6y ago
  The article gives examples and links to other articles with more examples. Among other I see it mentions JK Rowling and Bret Weinstein. I don't know enough about this to opine on what they've said, but would you categorize them as people who "constantly spout hateful views of women, LGBTQIAA2S+, and minorities"?
  - photokandy 6y ago
    When it comes to JK Rowling, absolutely. She's pretty firmly in TERF territory, and holds pretty damaging views when it comes to those of us who are trans/gender non-conforming.
    - hackinthebochs 6y ago
      What exactly has JK Rowlings said that is "hateful"?
    - briandear 6y ago
      She isn’t “hateful” because she disagrees. Is she not allowed to have an opinion that challenges the orthodoxy? People mix up “hate” with “opinion.” Disagreeing with something isn’t hating people.
      - chillwaves 6y ago
        Really depends on the opinion, doesn't it? If I would say my opinion is white people are inferior and violent, or Christians are primitive and a danger to society, would that not be hateful?
- emerged 6y ago
  I literally don't believe you can honestly not be aware of examples. To the extent that I suspect you posted this in order to gather all the low hanging fruit. Fair enough!
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    It's easy and lazy to attack the parent like this. I generally agree with them. I feel like the number of cases of "unjustly canceled" are extremely few - perhaps zero to two (I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I recall feeling that way). There are of course many I'd consider arguable, however. The point is, your attack is unreasonable.
- ericmcer 6y ago
  Just the day to day life of being a white male tech worker in the bay area? This is definitely not an area where alternative views are welcomed, it is either conform or be ostracized. If the J.K. Rowling thing came up in a group setting, and you stated one of the central points of this article: that there are biological differences between the sexes, people would slowly back away from you. People who have known you for a long time would throw you to the wolves rather than get taken along with you. Is that your idea of free speech?
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    How is one canceled day-to-day? Unless the definition is extending to include any disagreement?
- fileyfood 6y ago
  Former Carnegie Mellon student here. A couple students had a private argument over chat (facebook messenger) in which one student said some things that were not politically correct. The other student screenshot-ed the messages and posted them in the largest facebook group, with over 10k members. The post was heavily upvoted, and the student who made the non-politically correct comments received death threats and hundreds of angry messages. The student wrote a long apology to the community for their behavior and a planned "re-education" program they were undertaking to be better educated.
- smoe 6y ago
  I once almost got killed joking that LGBTQIAA2S+ looks more like a password than an initialism ... But I don't really care personally about any specific words so that is not where I see the problem. What I'm worried about is when entire topics become taboo and impossible to discuss. I don't think this is specific to "PC culture", its just different topics that get avoided than in other in-groups. As an example, During the "European refugee crisis", even as a leftist, in favor of letting the people in, it has been neigh impossible to discuss any potential problems without getting called or at least suspected a Nazi or similar.
- s9w 6y ago
  Still free speech if you don't like it
- briandear 6y ago
  The NY Times hires Sarah Jeong while Roseanne Barr gets fired. Sarah Jeong repeatedly made offensive and racist comments on her Twitter — unapologetically, while Roseanne triggered a national conniption fit. And what the heck is LGBTQIAA2S+? We have initialed and labeled and divided people so much with this hyper-woke activism that civil rights activism has become a caricature. It’s like the whole world has gone full-blown Portlandia. And the whole crowd has gone so extreme that even disagreeing on economic theory gets you labeled an -ist. JK Rowling was the target of cancellation after she expressed her opinion on sexuality. People literally can’t disagree anymore. Either toe the line, or get butchered by the Twitterari. JK Rowling isn’t even a conservative or even remotely right wing, but she is apparently not entitled to an opinion unless it’s perfectly in line. Ricky Gervais is another person that’s is constantly in hot water. He got tarred and feathered for daring to make a Bruce Jenner joke. Any disagreement or even harmless misstep results in outrage. Calm the f down people. You literally can’t have a disagreement with anything “on the left” without facing the rapid wrath of the professionally offended. Even standup comics, where offending literally everyone is their job get “cancelled” because people can’t even laugh anymore. It must be a miserable life to be perpetually offended. Interestingly, it’s ok and even encouraged to make fun of or spout hatred against “rednecks,” “hillbillies,” Christians, and in many circles, Jewish people. But make fun of a LGBTQIAA2S+ vegan Saudi woman and all hell will break lose. It’s like Thought Police are real. Don’t like something being said? Then say your own thing. Or turn the damned channel. There is a reason many stand up comedians avoid college campuses these days; everyone is so delicate and offended that comedy is essentially a dead art. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1kVdHr7sR0o https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1kVdHr7sR0o I am not condoning “hate,” but “hate” has become a synonym with “disagree” or “doesn’t support.” If someone doesn’t like Obama, they are immediately a “racist,” but if someone doesn’t like Clarence Thomas, then suddenly it’s about “ideas” and not race. People that criticized Condi Rice weren’t called mysogynist, but criticize Hillary Clinton and you apparently “hate women.” Supporting Bret Kavanaugh makes you a woman hater, but supporting Bill Clinton gets a pass. And it’s because of politics, not any particular social enlightenment. It’s hypocrisy of the highest order. Biden should be cancelled after his recent claim that “Latinos are diverse, unlike the African-American community.” He really said that. Incredibly racist. Yet aside from some right wing ramblings, that comment has been ignored by the very people so readily looking to cancel people. It’s a fact that the left is far more tolerated and protected while anyone who dares disagree is sent to the woodshed. As much as I detest Amy Schumer, I’m not calling for her to be banished, nor do I form noble sounding organizations dedicated to getting her “cancelled.” Organizations like Media Matters have made it their mission to cultivate outrage and attempt to sanitize any thoughts that might bruise their delicate sensibilities. What a miserable time in which we live. When comics are fearful of playing a university, then you know we’ve done some serious shark jumping. Berkeley used to be a center of contrarian thought and free speech, but not it’s positively East German in their level of tolerance of dissenting opinions.
- emteycz 6y ago
  > LGBTQIAA2S+ Not sure if you're mocking the LGBT group or what? Is that a real thing now? Googling it gives me only a (seemingly) mocking Urban Dictionary entry.
  - ECA_stax 6y ago
    please don't ever assume bad faith on this site. I'm from Canada, so the 2S throws off a lot of Americans. 2S is two-spirited and comes from Indigenous culture.
    - emteycz 6y ago
      I didn't assume it, that's why I googled the acronym first, but I found only a mocking UD entry, so I asked. I am European btw. This is the first time I heard about two-spiritedness.
  - Yetanfou 6y ago
    You're using the wrong search engine, I get loads of examples: https://queerevents.ca/events/toronto/social/2020-02-08/lgbtqiaa2s-youth-gaymer-event https://queerevents.ca/events/toronto/social/2020-02-08/lgbt... http://internationalstudentconnect.org/lgbtqiaa2s http://internationalstudentconnect.org/lgbtqiaa2s https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tees-46418045 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tees-46418045 etc. I've seen longer versions of the same in use like LGGBDTTTIQQAAP, this is used for some 'inclusiveness training' by the Canadian Elementary Teachers Federation (ETFO) of Ontario, it supposedly stands for Lesbian, Gay, Genderqueer, Bisexual, Demisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Twospirit, Intersex, Queer, Questioning, Asexual, Allies, Pansexual and Polyamorous.
    - emteycz 6y ago
      Wouldn't it be better to have a word that describes the person as 'other than majority' rather than a really long acronym? Similarly as we use the word foreigner instead of listing every possible nationality.
      - 6y ago
- chrismcb 6y ago
  How about the median American who got fired from his job for cracking his knuckles, while driving the company can? A passerby thought the guy was flashing the white power hand signal.
jetpackjoe 6y ago
All credibility is lost when she links to PragerU for her definition of intersectionality. Besides that, by her own logic of free speech, people have a right to call for boycotts/cancellations, do they not? Free speech for me, not for thee?
- dahfizz 6y ago
  You have the right to witch hunt in the same way that Karens have a right to not wear a mask in lots of places around the country. It's legally allowed but bad for society and you're a bad person for participating.
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    The parent didn't say anything remotely approaching witch hunting, and you're calling them "a bad person"? This seems like a wild jump to express some very explicit anger.
- ajkjk 6y ago
  I think the mindset that "one off-color joke on social media leads to condemning a person entirely", as in the article, is the same mindset as "one off-color reference to a definition makes an article lose all credibility", and is toxic in either case. I see comments like this all the time on HN and it seems so unfair: the article says a lot of things that aren't affected in the slightest by whether she linked to PragerU.
- gfodor 6y ago
  The absolutism you espouse wrapped up in guilt by association exemplifies the problem - if that was your intent, bravo.
  - jetpackjoe 6y ago
    My intent was to say that PragerU is partisan propaganda, not a source for definition. At best, someone could use it as part of an adversarial process at arriving at the truth, but the author doesn't do that. They take the definition at face value. (A ridiculous definition at that). I wouldn't use PETA for my definition of factory farming. So yes, if you aren't able to find a non-partisan definition , then I assume the whole piece is partisan, and therefore lacking credibility.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ajkjk 6y ago
Whether others' behavior is 'right' or not is one moral question, but how you react to it is an independent one, and there's no good outcome from vitriol. Among other things is drives those on the other side of it to 'raise arms' in response, leading to an all-out culture war, and I'm pretty sure it's what got Trump selected. There's some relief in the knowledge that it's way more prevalent on the internet than in real life, and most people just don't care that much. But the people most vocal on social media are also those most polarized so it _seems_ way more common than it is, which in turn sucks more people into it because they don't know otherwise.
Tiktaalik 6y ago
> I was a Democrat for most of my life. I’m socially liberal, and that’s always been a key part of my values and my identity. I’m pro choice, pro LGBTQ rights, pro environmental issues, pro free speech, and anti-racism. To be more clear, she's a millennial Republican. She was born at a time where these social liberal points she tries to claim as her beliefs deserving acclaim were already long resolved in the mainstream and she seems to have no interest in working for further social justice beyond what was already fought and won before she became politically aware. For the apparent contradictions she highlights and questions she asks there are of course reasonable answers, but she doesn't seem to have the curiosity to dig into the issues behind what the posters on twitter are referencing. Instead simply being distraught at the discourse that she doesn't understand.
- Tiktaalik 6y ago
  lmao just marvelling at how blissfully rich and ignorant you have to be to not understand why some people might be mad at you for talking about gentrification as a good thing.
  - fileyfood 6y ago
    I don't believe she's talking about gentrification as a good thing, just using it as a metric. For example, on a lower income, I wouldn't choose to look in a highly gentrified area for housing, because rent prices may be unaffordable and come with a lot of amenities I don't need. Food/restaurant prices may also be unaffordable. Personally, I have chosen to live in more and less gentrified areas based on how much money I was able to/comfortable spending on rent. At an extreme end of the spectrum, most of us may not live in Beverly Hills, CA, or own a condo in midtown Manhattan, and it's informative to say those areas are extremely gentrified and un-affordable. There are more discussions about income inequality, capitalism in the housing market, unfair housing practices, etc, that the author wasn't trying to comment on when she was broadcasting information. Imo, the challenge is that it may be assumed that you have bad intent. And also imo, I don't expect this challenge to go away, or be "fixed" (if it is a problem at all). The power to have your words be broadcast to millions in an instant is also the challenge of having millions of reactions to your words.
rudiv 6y ago
You lost me when you went on a diatribe about socialism, as if the modern democratic socialist movement in the US, for e.g., has a lot in common with Stalin's USSR, which was a totalitarian, authoritarian state.
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  Stalin's USSR did not start as a totalitarian, authoritarian state. The revolution started with several 'socialist'-related factions who claimed to want to improve the lot of the oppressed. It was after the Bolsheviks took over when things rapidly went downhill. Do you think the same can not happen elsewhere? For the rest the more apt comparison is between the radical left in the USA and Maoist China, complete with struggle sessions. No person so virtuous or someone will find something, anything for which that person will be made to apologise. Once the apology - and with that the confession of guilt - is in that person can be cancelled at any time, just like in Mao's China. Also note the following, supposedly said by cardinal Richelieu: Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre which translates to If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.. This is not a new concept, the difference between Richelieu's France and Mao's China is that the accusers are not (yet) in power. https://www.wsj.com/articles/get-ready-for-the-struggle-session-11552003346 https://www.wsj.com/articles/get-ready-for-the-struggle-sess...
crnkofe 6y ago
I have to aggree with a lot of statements made in the post. Both left and right have become more extreme defending their views, calling out 'offenders'. Here's a small sample from across the ocean. We used to have legal and illegal immigrants in Slovenia. Most countries still do. But since leftist media found illegal to be a non-correct word they simply started using another one (prebežniki - could be translated as runaways). This in a way signifies their humanity but I ask myself what's wrong with calling a criminal a criminal? I guess the left/right zeal is a response to politics ignoring those opinions and it's likely to get much worse until either side gets some changes into motion.
- xook 6y ago
  > but I ask myself what's wrong with calling a criminal a criminal? Certain leftists–typically the loud ones–throw away the notion of international borders and private land ownership. With this in mind, the idea to them that any one person is anywhere illegally is offensive.
- locopati 6y ago
  i can't speak for the situation in Slovenia - speaking from an US standpoint - 'illegal immigrant' puts the focus on the immigrant who is generally escaping one crappy situation for a better opportunity and generally doing the shit-work nobody else wants to do - the person is not illegal, they are undocumented (which is a misdemeanor offense in the US and generally means being deported) - our food production systems depend on these workers and those companies and this government do not want to be honest about that - notice that the employer is rarely if ever punished for knowingly hiring undocumented workers (like the US president for example) - by focusing on illegality it obscures the humanity of the person and paints the situation with a broad-brush that then allows US racists to extend this to anyone who is not white (we hear many stories from people of color of being told to 'go home' even though they were born here) so maybe this clarifies a little while immigration may not be the best case for talking about 'politically-correct speech'? i highly recommend Ai Wei Wei's documentary on refugees and migration, Human Flow
dang 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23719559 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23719559

60 points by phonon 6y ago

>Politically-correct witch-hunt is killing free speech I have yet to see an example of this, even though people complain about it all the time. I've only seen it "kill" careers of people who consistently spout hateful views of women, LGBTQIAA2S+, and minorities. If someone could provide me an example of "PoliTicAllY COrRecT cuLtUrE" killing someone who doesn't fall into this criteria, I'd be happy to hear examples :)

influx 6y ago
What are your thoughts on this: “ David Shor, an analyst at Democratic polling firm Civis Analytics, tweeted a study that concluded, "race riots reduced Democratic vote share." That study was probably accurate. Obviously, rioting alienates voters. But the mob attacked Shor. "Come get your boy," one tweeted. His bosses did. Even though Shor issued a groveling apology, he was fired.”
- eesmith 6y ago
  FWIW, here are my thoughts. 1) What is a "race riot"? Definitions are important. Should we call it the Tulsa Massacre or the Tulsa Race Riot? And does the choice of term reflect your view? 2) Are there any race riots going on now? Which events are race riots and which are not? My reading of the history of the topic is that "race riot" was the term used by whites to describe resistance by minorities to white oppression, as in the Tulsa example above. 3) Why did Shor decide to characterize the linked-to paper http://www.omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf http://www.omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf as providing information on "race riot"s? The referenced paper uses the term "race riot" twice, both when referencing the works of other people. Instead, it uses the description "black-led protests" and proposes that "nonviolent activism, particularly when met with state or vigilante repression, drove media coverage, framing, Congressional speech and public opinion on civil rights." which it juxtaposes with "Protester-initiated violence". If we accept the narrative that the violence of many of the current protests are the results of state-initiated repression, then do those protests fall in the first category or the second? Or neither, in which case the study isn't relevant. Note that if we use the definition of "Protester-initiated violence" then if we call it the Tulsa Race Riot then it's clearly a race riot initiated by white protestors. (One of many, I'll add.) Is the implication that all black-lead protests with protester-initiated violence should be characterized as a "race riot"? 4) You write "rioting alienates voters". Is that really true? I assume that white-lead protests with protester-initiated violence against non-whites are also race riots. Do you agree? Did the Tulsa Massacre/"Race Riot" alienate voters against the protesting whites? Did the Zoot Suit Riots alienate voters against Navy sailors? I .. don't think they did. In fact, I think it was quite the opposite. So I don't think your "obviously" is all that correct a summary. 5) How is the term "killing free speech" at all relevant? Over and over I see "cancel culture" applied to famous or influential people who have a loss of prestige based on what they wrote or said, but who are NOT CANCELED in any meaningful sense. Eg, at https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/david-shor-cancel-culture-2020-election-theory-polls.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/david-shor-cancel-cu... I read that "Shor is still consulting in Democratic politics, but he is no longer working for a firm that restricts his freedom to publicly opine." ECA_stax pointed out the hyperbole in using the term "kill". How do you get from "still consulting in Democratic politics" to "killed", or from "must conform to an employer's policies" to "killing free speech"?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
vorpalhex 6y ago
Uhlig as a recent example, Rowling which is raised in the article. This is trivial to name more examples.
- Tiktaalik 6y ago
  You can't cancel a billionaire
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    Sure you can. Cancelation has nothing to do with the amount of money you own, nor the color of your skin, your religious beliefs, nationality, gender identity, preferred pronouns, political lean or ice cream preferences.
    - Tiktaalik 6y ago
      How does Rowling get cancelled? How does she get deprived of her income? Deprived of a platform? Even if she is never allowed to write a book again, never invited on Oprah again, she has $1B dollars, which is more than any of us will ever see.
linkmotif 6y ago
Example: my life. My sister is woke: I can't really say what I think around her. Lots of my "friends" are woke: can't really talk to them. And mind you, my opinions aren't like of that guy who worked at Google and wrote "if women weren't bad at math, wouldn't they be working with computers?" or whatever that guy wrote. That's not my style of thinking. But my style of thinking is definitely not "woke" and therefore many of my thoughts would easily be categorized as hate speech or something by woke people. My vibe is the people who keep saying free speech these days isn't a problem are the same people who demand you only speak their orthodoxy. Always has, always will be.
- lgleason 6y ago
  > "if women weren't bad at math, wouldn't they be working with computers?" That is not what he said. Read the memo. That said I agree with the rest of your points.
  - strken 6y ago
    The memo is 10 pages long and easy to read, or at least skim. I highly encourage anyone who has an opinion on it to at least read it. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
- notmarkus 6y ago
  Sounds like you're pigeonholing Damore (of Google Memo fame) the same way that you don't want to be. You should read the original memo, and not an opinionated summary of it, it's not long. You may find that you were sold a lie about it.
  - kangnkodos 6y ago
    I've read the 10 page memo several times. I strongly disagree with his central ideas. However, I see them as political thoughts. Political thoughts I strongly disagree with. And the way I look at it, he was fired because of two things. 1) He had right wing political ideas which most people at Google strongly disagree with. 2) He wrote them down in a shared work forum. I've read second hand accounts of many unusual ideas which have been shared on internal Google forums. I agree with lots. I also disagree with lots, both left and right. But it was only the guy on the right who got fired. I'm not aware of anyone ever getting fired from Google for expressing far left political ideas. Let me know if I'm wrong on this. It's 2020. Today's lesson is that if I have an idea out of the accepted mainstream of my company, and they are on the right, then keep my mouth shut, or I'll be fired. If the idea is on the left, I can go ahead and share my thoughts.
drak0n1c 6y ago
This week in Seattle, a popular weatherman on local NPR radio was fired for a post on his personal blog, where he criticized violent rioters and compared the chilling effects of their targeted property damage to historical examples, such as Kristallnacht. He has no record of "hateful views of women, LGBTQIAA2S+, and minorities" and the post itself did not contain such either. The blog post in question: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/08/seattle-city-in-fear-can-be-restored.html https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/08/seattle-city-in-fear-...
- mef 6y ago
  fwiw a quick googling of this guy shows that he’s had his weather segments cancelled before on other networks, and by his own admission it’s because he veers off topic from weather and into controversy (E.g. climate change denial)
- AndrewDucker 6y ago
  Frankly, comparing anything to Kristallnacht which isn't actually related to the deliberate destruction of a people is offensive.
  - drak0n1c 6y ago
    People weren’t being deliberately destroyed at the early stages when Kristallnacht occurred either. I believe that’s the reasoning behind why prominent activists and lawmakers (rightly or wrongly) compared federal actions in Portland to the Nazi Gestapo and such a comparison wasn’t seen as offensive and they weren’t cancelled. The idea of recognizing warning signs. For the record, I’m Jewish and don’t see such comparisons as offensive. It’s good to try to learn from historical similarities, however faint.
  - Yetanfou 6y ago
    Abusing the word 'offensive' by applying it to expressions you happen to disagree with is a significant part of the problem. While you might not agree with the comparison to Kristallnacht that does not mean he caused you to be upset or hurt your feelings - which is the dictionary definition of the non-military meaning of the word offensive. He just said something you don't agree with, something which is bound to happen in a free society where free speech is the norm. The way the word offensive is used here is offensive in the military way since it is meant as an attack which is supposed to silence the person who spoke those words. Free speech should be defended not for those people you agree with but for those you disagree with.
cannaceo 6y ago
Terry Crews is the most popular example that comes to mind. Larry Summers is more controversial but same result.
grandridge 6y ago
Didn't say killing someone, said free speech. Girl was killed by blm because she said all lives matter. That is her right to say you don't get to decide what's right or wrong, hence free speech
justchilly 6y ago
The article gives examples and links to other articles with more examples. Among other I see it mentions JK Rowling and Bret Weinstein. I don't know enough about this to opine on what they've said, but would you categorize them as people who "constantly spout hateful views of women, LGBTQIAA2S+, and minorities"?
- photokandy 6y ago
  When it comes to JK Rowling, absolutely. She's pretty firmly in TERF territory, and holds pretty damaging views when it comes to those of us who are trans/gender non-conforming.
  - hackinthebochs 6y ago
    What exactly has JK Rowlings said that is "hateful"?
  - briandear 6y ago
    She isn’t “hateful” because she disagrees. Is she not allowed to have an opinion that challenges the orthodoxy? People mix up “hate” with “opinion.” Disagreeing with something isn’t hating people.
    - chillwaves 6y ago
      Really depends on the opinion, doesn't it? If I would say my opinion is white people are inferior and violent, or Christians are primitive and a danger to society, would that not be hateful?
emerged 6y ago
I literally don't believe you can honestly not be aware of examples. To the extent that I suspect you posted this in order to gather all the low hanging fruit. Fair enough!
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  It's easy and lazy to attack the parent like this. I generally agree with them. I feel like the number of cases of "unjustly canceled" are extremely few - perhaps zero to two (I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I recall feeling that way). There are of course many I'd consider arguable, however. The point is, your attack is unreasonable.
ericmcer 6y ago
Just the day to day life of being a white male tech worker in the bay area? This is definitely not an area where alternative views are welcomed, it is either conform or be ostracized. If the J.K. Rowling thing came up in a group setting, and you stated one of the central points of this article: that there are biological differences between the sexes, people would slowly back away from you. People who have known you for a long time would throw you to the wolves rather than get taken along with you. Is that your idea of free speech?
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  How is one canceled day-to-day? Unless the definition is extending to include any disagreement?
fileyfood 6y ago
Former Carnegie Mellon student here. A couple students had a private argument over chat (facebook messenger) in which one student said some things that were not politically correct. The other student screenshot-ed the messages and posted them in the largest facebook group, with over 10k members. The post was heavily upvoted, and the student who made the non-politically correct comments received death threats and hundreds of angry messages. The student wrote a long apology to the community for their behavior and a planned "re-education" program they were undertaking to be better educated.
smoe 6y ago
I once almost got killed joking that LGBTQIAA2S+ looks more like a password than an initialism ... But I don't really care personally about any specific words so that is not where I see the problem. What I'm worried about is when entire topics become taboo and impossible to discuss. I don't think this is specific to "PC culture", its just different topics that get avoided than in other in-groups. As an example, During the "European refugee crisis", even as a leftist, in favor of letting the people in, it has been neigh impossible to discuss any potential problems without getting called or at least suspected a Nazi or similar.
s9w 6y ago
Still free speech if you don't like it
briandear 6y ago
The NY Times hires Sarah Jeong while Roseanne Barr gets fired. Sarah Jeong repeatedly made offensive and racist comments on her Twitter — unapologetically, while Roseanne triggered a national conniption fit. And what the heck is LGBTQIAA2S+? We have initialed and labeled and divided people so much with this hyper-woke activism that civil rights activism has become a caricature. It’s like the whole world has gone full-blown Portlandia. And the whole crowd has gone so extreme that even disagreeing on economic theory gets you labeled an -ist. JK Rowling was the target of cancellation after she expressed her opinion on sexuality. People literally can’t disagree anymore. Either toe the line, or get butchered by the Twitterari. JK Rowling isn’t even a conservative or even remotely right wing, but she is apparently not entitled to an opinion unless it’s perfectly in line. Ricky Gervais is another person that’s is constantly in hot water. He got tarred and feathered for daring to make a Bruce Jenner joke. Any disagreement or even harmless misstep results in outrage. Calm the f down people. You literally can’t have a disagreement with anything “on the left” without facing the rapid wrath of the professionally offended. Even standup comics, where offending literally everyone is their job get “cancelled” because people can’t even laugh anymore. It must be a miserable life to be perpetually offended. Interestingly, it’s ok and even encouraged to make fun of or spout hatred against “rednecks,” “hillbillies,” Christians, and in many circles, Jewish people. But make fun of a LGBTQIAA2S+ vegan Saudi woman and all hell will break lose. It’s like Thought Police are real. Don’t like something being said? Then say your own thing. Or turn the damned channel. There is a reason many stand up comedians avoid college campuses these days; everyone is so delicate and offended that comedy is essentially a dead art. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1kVdHr7sR0o https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1kVdHr7sR0o I am not condoning “hate,” but “hate” has become a synonym with “disagree” or “doesn’t support.” If someone doesn’t like Obama, they are immediately a “racist,” but if someone doesn’t like Clarence Thomas, then suddenly it’s about “ideas” and not race. People that criticized Condi Rice weren’t called mysogynist, but criticize Hillary Clinton and you apparently “hate women.” Supporting Bret Kavanaugh makes you a woman hater, but supporting Bill Clinton gets a pass. And it’s because of politics, not any particular social enlightenment. It’s hypocrisy of the highest order. Biden should be cancelled after his recent claim that “Latinos are diverse, unlike the African-American community.” He really said that. Incredibly racist. Yet aside from some right wing ramblings, that comment has been ignored by the very people so readily looking to cancel people. It’s a fact that the left is far more tolerated and protected while anyone who dares disagree is sent to the woodshed. As much as I detest Amy Schumer, I’m not calling for her to be banished, nor do I form noble sounding organizations dedicated to getting her “cancelled.” Organizations like Media Matters have made it their mission to cultivate outrage and attempt to sanitize any thoughts that might bruise their delicate sensibilities. What a miserable time in which we live. When comics are fearful of playing a university, then you know we’ve done some serious shark jumping. Berkeley used to be a center of contrarian thought and free speech, but not it’s positively East German in their level of tolerance of dissenting opinions.
emteycz 6y ago
> LGBTQIAA2S+ Not sure if you're mocking the LGBT group or what? Is that a real thing now? Googling it gives me only a (seemingly) mocking Urban Dictionary entry.
- ECA_stax 6y ago
  please don't ever assume bad faith on this site. I'm from Canada, so the 2S throws off a lot of Americans. 2S is two-spirited and comes from Indigenous culture.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    I didn't assume it, that's why I googled the acronym first, but I found only a mocking UD entry, so I asked. I am European btw. This is the first time I heard about two-spiritedness.
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  You're using the wrong search engine, I get loads of examples: https://queerevents.ca/events/toronto/social/2020-02-08/lgbtqiaa2s-youth-gaymer-event https://queerevents.ca/events/toronto/social/2020-02-08/lgbt... http://internationalstudentconnect.org/lgbtqiaa2s http://internationalstudentconnect.org/lgbtqiaa2s https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tees-46418045 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tees-46418045 etc. I've seen longer versions of the same in use like LGGBDTTTIQQAAP, this is used for some 'inclusiveness training' by the Canadian Elementary Teachers Federation (ETFO) of Ontario, it supposedly stands for Lesbian, Gay, Genderqueer, Bisexual, Demisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Twospirit, Intersex, Queer, Questioning, Asexual, Allies, Pansexual and Polyamorous.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    Wouldn't it be better to have a word that describes the person as 'other than majority' rather than a really long acronym? Similarly as we use the word foreigner instead of listing every possible nationality.
    - 6y ago
chrismcb 6y ago
How about the median American who got fired from his job for cracking his knuckles, while driving the company can? A passerby thought the guy was flashing the white power hand signal.

jetpackjoe 6y ago

All credibility is lost when she links to PragerU for her definition of intersectionality. Besides that, by her own logic of free speech, people have a right to call for boycotts/cancellations, do they not? Free speech for me, not for thee?

dahfizz 6y ago
You have the right to witch hunt in the same way that Karens have a right to not wear a mask in lots of places around the country. It's legally allowed but bad for society and you're a bad person for participating.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  The parent didn't say anything remotely approaching witch hunting, and you're calling them "a bad person"? This seems like a wild jump to express some very explicit anger.
ajkjk 6y ago
I think the mindset that "one off-color joke on social media leads to condemning a person entirely", as in the article, is the same mindset as "one off-color reference to a definition makes an article lose all credibility", and is toxic in either case. I see comments like this all the time on HN and it seems so unfair: the article says a lot of things that aren't affected in the slightest by whether she linked to PragerU.
gfodor 6y ago
The absolutism you espouse wrapped up in guilt by association exemplifies the problem - if that was your intent, bravo.
- jetpackjoe 6y ago
  My intent was to say that PragerU is partisan propaganda, not a source for definition. At best, someone could use it as part of an adversarial process at arriving at the truth, but the author doesn't do that. They take the definition at face value. (A ridiculous definition at that). I wouldn't use PETA for my definition of factory farming. So yes, if you aren't able to find a non-partisan definition , then I assume the whole piece is partisan, and therefore lacking credibility.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ajkjk 6y ago

Whether others' behavior is 'right' or not is one moral question, but how you react to it is an independent one, and there's no good outcome from vitriol. Among other things is drives those on the other side of it to 'raise arms' in response, leading to an all-out culture war, and I'm pretty sure it's what got Trump selected. There's some relief in the knowledge that it's way more prevalent on the internet than in real life, and most people just don't care that much. But the people most vocal on social media are also those most polarized so it _seems_ way more common than it is, which in turn sucks more people into it because they don't know otherwise.

Tiktaalik 6y ago

> I was a Democrat for most of my life. I’m socially liberal, and that’s always been a key part of my values and my identity. I’m pro choice, pro LGBTQ rights, pro environmental issues, pro free speech, and anti-racism. To be more clear, she's a millennial Republican. She was born at a time where these social liberal points she tries to claim as her beliefs deserving acclaim were already long resolved in the mainstream and she seems to have no interest in working for further social justice beyond what was already fought and won before she became politically aware. For the apparent contradictions she highlights and questions she asks there are of course reasonable answers, but she doesn't seem to have the curiosity to dig into the issues behind what the posters on twitter are referencing. Instead simply being distraught at the discourse that she doesn't understand.

Tiktaalik 6y ago
lmao just marvelling at how blissfully rich and ignorant you have to be to not understand why some people might be mad at you for talking about gentrification as a good thing.
- fileyfood 6y ago
  I don't believe she's talking about gentrification as a good thing, just using it as a metric. For example, on a lower income, I wouldn't choose to look in a highly gentrified area for housing, because rent prices may be unaffordable and come with a lot of amenities I don't need. Food/restaurant prices may also be unaffordable. Personally, I have chosen to live in more and less gentrified areas based on how much money I was able to/comfortable spending on rent. At an extreme end of the spectrum, most of us may not live in Beverly Hills, CA, or own a condo in midtown Manhattan, and it's informative to say those areas are extremely gentrified and un-affordable. There are more discussions about income inequality, capitalism in the housing market, unfair housing practices, etc, that the author wasn't trying to comment on when she was broadcasting information. Imo, the challenge is that it may be assumed that you have bad intent. And also imo, I don't expect this challenge to go away, or be "fixed" (if it is a problem at all). The power to have your words be broadcast to millions in an instant is also the challenge of having millions of reactions to your words.

rudiv 6y ago

You lost me when you went on a diatribe about socialism, as if the modern democratic socialist movement in the US, for e.g., has a lot in common with Stalin's USSR, which was a totalitarian, authoritarian state.

Yetanfou 6y ago
Stalin's USSR did not start as a totalitarian, authoritarian state. The revolution started with several 'socialist'-related factions who claimed to want to improve the lot of the oppressed. It was after the Bolsheviks took over when things rapidly went downhill. Do you think the same can not happen elsewhere? For the rest the more apt comparison is between the radical left in the USA and Maoist China, complete with struggle sessions. No person so virtuous or someone will find something, anything for which that person will be made to apologise. Once the apology - and with that the confession of guilt - is in that person can be cancelled at any time, just like in Mao's China. Also note the following, supposedly said by cardinal Richelieu: Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre which translates to If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.. This is not a new concept, the difference between Richelieu's France and Mao's China is that the accusers are not (yet) in power. https://www.wsj.com/articles/get-ready-for-the-struggle-session-11552003346 https://www.wsj.com/articles/get-ready-for-the-struggle-sess...

crnkofe 6y ago

I have to aggree with a lot of statements made in the post. Both left and right have become more extreme defending their views, calling out 'offenders'. Here's a small sample from across the ocean. We used to have legal and illegal immigrants in Slovenia. Most countries still do. But since leftist media found illegal to be a non-correct word they simply started using another one (prebežniki - could be translated as runaways). This in a way signifies their humanity but I ask myself what's wrong with calling a criminal a criminal? I guess the left/right zeal is a response to politics ignoring those opinions and it's likely to get much worse until either side gets some changes into motion.

xook 6y ago
> but I ask myself what's wrong with calling a criminal a criminal? Certain leftists–typically the loud ones–throw away the notion of international borders and private land ownership. With this in mind, the idea to them that any one person is anywhere illegally is offensive.
locopati 6y ago
i can't speak for the situation in Slovenia - speaking from an US standpoint - 'illegal immigrant' puts the focus on the immigrant who is generally escaping one crappy situation for a better opportunity and generally doing the shit-work nobody else wants to do - the person is not illegal, they are undocumented (which is a misdemeanor offense in the US and generally means being deported) - our food production systems depend on these workers and those companies and this government do not want to be honest about that - notice that the employer is rarely if ever punished for knowingly hiring undocumented workers (like the US president for example) - by focusing on illegality it obscures the humanity of the person and paints the situation with a broad-brush that then allows US racists to extend this to anyone who is not white (we hear many stories from people of color of being told to 'go home' even though they were born here) so maybe this clarifies a little while immigration may not be the best case for talking about 'politically-correct speech'? i highly recommend Ai Wei Wei's documentary on refugees and migration, Human Flow

dang 6y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23719559 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23719559