6 ms·

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

richardwhiuk 6y ago
Not really. You are basically arguing that anyone who provides a platform for viewpoints, must provide a platform for any viewpoint, no matter how abhorent they (and their readers) might find it.
- john_moscow 6y ago
  Well, it gets interesting if you actually look into it. Somewhat simplifying it, but there are 4 types of actors: 1. Content creators. People that share viewpoints. They are motivated by influencing others who read their pieces. 2. Content consumers. People that read what is published by creators. You can split these in 2 groups: 2a. Non-activist consumers. They don't have much free time and generally just skip over something they don't like. They are the majority. 2b. Activist consumers. They have lots of free time and want their share of influence. By influencing what content creators can write they feel an influence over what non-activist consumers can consume. 3. Providers. They provide platforms connecting content creators and consumers. They generally just care about making money and rely on partnerships with other providers (banks, payment processors, hosting companies, domain registries, etc). They would gladly cut off business that brings negative PR to them. So what is happening recently is a very small vocal minority of activist consumers is getting increased control over what content creators (1) can share to regular consumers (2a). They do it by forcing big providers (banks, cloud providers, etc) to cut ties with smaller providers that are not aligned with the activist consumers' viewpoints. Hence, many other providers are forced to self-censor in fear of losing access to banking and other vital services. It's a rather weird negative selection process powered by the social media. Instead of encouraging the unhappy unproductive people to learn from their more successful peers and knock off what worked for them, we are giving them increasing control over the media space, so they can make their views (that lead to unhappiness) more mainstream, resulting in more unhappiness and more social tension.
- ttt0 6y ago
  You said it like it's an unthinkable thing to do, but it used to be a policy - FCC fairness doctrine.
  - schoen 6y ago
    Though the FCC's justification for the Fairness Doctrine was akin to part of their justification for prohibiting profanity in broadcasts: the huge scarcity of broadcast spectrum and the relatively small number of channels that could exist in a particular media market. They never attempted to apply the Fairness Doctrine to media other than licensed broadcast stations, and, when they repealed it, they noted that broadcasters would then have the same editorial freedom as print publishers -- who are allowed to be biased and treat others' viewpoints unfairly.
- rayiner 6y ago
  “Anyone” is doing a lot of work in your sentence. Universities are given a huge amount of special dispensation by society because they of their commitment to free inquiry. A literary magazine at a university should embody those principles. If it doesn’t, then why give them a privileged place in society? Back in the day conservatives alleged that “free inquiry” was a pretext and universities were a Trojan horse for radical leftism. This strain of thought vindicates those critics.
  - yew 6y ago
    I wouldn't call expunging racism from society "radical" or incompatible with any inquiry worth making free. If conservatives need to "allege" about that, what more do you need to hear?
    - rayiner 6y ago
      No, but it is radical to do that while redefining “racism” to encompass literally every aspect of existing society radicals don’t like: capitalism, the U.S. Constitution, individualism, being white (“whiteness”), etc.
marshmallow_12 6y ago
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.
- monkeypizza 6y ago
  Yes, this is a coherent, stable proposal. For a tolerant society to adopt complete tolerance, even of things designed to destroy their society, is unstable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - ttt0 6y ago
    It's fine, just don't call yourself "tolerant". It's doublespeak, just like how the word "racism" is used today
    - monkeypizza 6y ago
      In your definition of tolerant, is it required to tolerate even attempts to destroy the tolerant person? i.e. is there a line beyond which tolerance doesn't apply? Where do laws fit in here? I honestly thought that tolerance already included this concept - it actually means tolerant of difference of opinion, except for attempts to overthrow and replace the system of tolerance itself.
      - schoen 6y ago
        I've thought that the "attempts to destroy" and "attempts to overthrow" are limited in the sense of "imminent lawless action" and not "mere teaching or advocacy". E.g. if someone says "we should have a dictatorship of the proletariat/guardianship of the Islamic Jurist/integralist monarchy/national socialism/etc. instead of the social order that we have now", that statement doesn't cause or create those systems. Tolerating it presumably does increase the chance that one of those systems will eventually come to power (because advocating it could be an important step in creating it), but there's no guarantee of that, any more than there's a guarantee that tolerating any other idea or belief will lead to that idea or belief's ascendancy or general acceptance! (And on the other hand, not tolerating these ideas also opens the door to making other beliefs shared with any of these belief systems taboo.)
cm2187 6y ago
Cancel culture is only the symptom of those institutions being taken over by ideological extremists. The solution is competition. Universities are destroying their brand with those positions. I am probably not the only engineer unimpressed by slogans like “decolonise maths”, and I would think twice before hiring graduates that excelled in that environment. Likewise, companies that push those ideologies should be boycotted. I don’t want to buy razor blades from a manufacturer who calls me a rapist. I just switched.
- alphabettsy 6y ago
  Is that not the worst kind of cancel culture? You’re going to discriminate against graduates of a university with a professor or department you don’t like?
  - waterhouse 6y ago
    It depends how inclusively you define the term. It doesn't involve posting the candidates on social media or otherwise forming a mob, nor creating negative publicity to pressure an institution into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do. There may be people who use the term "cancel culture" more loosely than that, but I think the above criteria are useful—they cover many examples, yet are specific enough to justify the assertion "cancel culture is dangerous, destructive, and likely bad".
- antihero 6y ago
  > I don’t want to buy razor blades from a manufacturer who calls me a rapist. I just switched. Seriously? Which brand called you a rapist? Also if you aren't using safety razors and cheap sharp blades like Astras then you're already wasting ££ so I cannot consider you truely rational
antihero 6y ago
Not all the time, the problem is that certain viewpoints and grifters are so incessant and relentless with their garbage, most likely because being controversial is a cheap trick to making a lot of money, that there needs to be some filter or management to prevent actual discussion from being drowned out. Imagine we invited Stormfront to join HN for a day? Would these opposing ideas cause growth? Of course not.

richardwhiuk 6y ago

Not really. You are basically arguing that anyone who provides a platform for viewpoints, must provide a platform for any viewpoint, no matter how abhorent they (and their readers) might find it.

john_moscow 6y ago
Well, it gets interesting if you actually look into it. Somewhat simplifying it, but there are 4 types of actors: 1. Content creators. People that share viewpoints. They are motivated by influencing others who read their pieces. 2. Content consumers. People that read what is published by creators. You can split these in 2 groups: 2a. Non-activist consumers. They don't have much free time and generally just skip over something they don't like. They are the majority. 2b. Activist consumers. They have lots of free time and want their share of influence. By influencing what content creators can write they feel an influence over what non-activist consumers can consume. 3. Providers. They provide platforms connecting content creators and consumers. They generally just care about making money and rely on partnerships with other providers (banks, payment processors, hosting companies, domain registries, etc). They would gladly cut off business that brings negative PR to them. So what is happening recently is a very small vocal minority of activist consumers is getting increased control over what content creators (1) can share to regular consumers (2a). They do it by forcing big providers (banks, cloud providers, etc) to cut ties with smaller providers that are not aligned with the activist consumers' viewpoints. Hence, many other providers are forced to self-censor in fear of losing access to banking and other vital services. It's a rather weird negative selection process powered by the social media. Instead of encouraging the unhappy unproductive people to learn from their more successful peers and knock off what worked for them, we are giving them increasing control over the media space, so they can make their views (that lead to unhappiness) more mainstream, resulting in more unhappiness and more social tension.
ttt0 6y ago
You said it like it's an unthinkable thing to do, but it used to be a policy - FCC fairness doctrine.
- schoen 6y ago
  Though the FCC's justification for the Fairness Doctrine was akin to part of their justification for prohibiting profanity in broadcasts: the huge scarcity of broadcast spectrum and the relatively small number of channels that could exist in a particular media market. They never attempted to apply the Fairness Doctrine to media other than licensed broadcast stations, and, when they repealed it, they noted that broadcasters would then have the same editorial freedom as print publishers -- who are allowed to be biased and treat others' viewpoints unfairly.
rayiner 6y ago
“Anyone” is doing a lot of work in your sentence. Universities are given a huge amount of special dispensation by society because they of their commitment to free inquiry. A literary magazine at a university should embody those principles. If it doesn’t, then why give them a privileged place in society? Back in the day conservatives alleged that “free inquiry” was a pretext and universities were a Trojan horse for radical leftism. This strain of thought vindicates those critics.
- yew 6y ago
  I wouldn't call expunging racism from society "radical" or incompatible with any inquiry worth making free. If conservatives need to "allege" about that, what more do you need to hear?
  - rayiner 6y ago
    No, but it is radical to do that while redefining “racism” to encompass literally every aspect of existing society radicals don’t like: capitalism, the U.S. Constitution, individualism, being white (“whiteness”), etc.

marshmallow_12 6y ago

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.

monkeypizza 6y ago
Yes, this is a coherent, stable proposal. For a tolerant society to adopt complete tolerance, even of things designed to destroy their society, is unstable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- ttt0 6y ago
  It's fine, just don't call yourself "tolerant". It's doublespeak, just like how the word "racism" is used today
  - monkeypizza 6y ago
    In your definition of tolerant, is it required to tolerate even attempts to destroy the tolerant person? i.e. is there a line beyond which tolerance doesn't apply? Where do laws fit in here? I honestly thought that tolerance already included this concept - it actually means tolerant of difference of opinion, except for attempts to overthrow and replace the system of tolerance itself.
    - schoen 6y ago
      I've thought that the "attempts to destroy" and "attempts to overthrow" are limited in the sense of "imminent lawless action" and not "mere teaching or advocacy". E.g. if someone says "we should have a dictatorship of the proletariat/guardianship of the Islamic Jurist/integralist monarchy/national socialism/etc. instead of the social order that we have now", that statement doesn't cause or create those systems. Tolerating it presumably does increase the chance that one of those systems will eventually come to power (because advocating it could be an important step in creating it), but there's no guarantee of that, any more than there's a guarantee that tolerating any other idea or belief will lead to that idea or belief's ascendancy or general acceptance! (And on the other hand, not tolerating these ideas also opens the door to making other beliefs shared with any of these belief systems taboo.)

cm2187 6y ago

Cancel culture is only the symptom of those institutions being taken over by ideological extremists. The solution is competition. Universities are destroying their brand with those positions. I am probably not the only engineer unimpressed by slogans like “decolonise maths”, and I would think twice before hiring graduates that excelled in that environment. Likewise, companies that push those ideologies should be boycotted. I don’t want to buy razor blades from a manufacturer who calls me a rapist. I just switched.

alphabettsy 6y ago
Is that not the worst kind of cancel culture? You’re going to discriminate against graduates of a university with a professor or department you don’t like?
- waterhouse 6y ago
  It depends how inclusively you define the term. It doesn't involve posting the candidates on social media or otherwise forming a mob, nor creating negative publicity to pressure an institution into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do. There may be people who use the term "cancel culture" more loosely than that, but I think the above criteria are useful—they cover many examples, yet are specific enough to justify the assertion "cancel culture is dangerous, destructive, and likely bad".
antihero 6y ago
> I don’t want to buy razor blades from a manufacturer who calls me a rapist. I just switched. Seriously? Which brand called you a rapist? Also if you aren't using safety razors and cheap sharp blades like Astras then you're already wasting ££ so I cannot consider you truely rational

antihero 6y ago

Not all the time, the problem is that certain viewpoints and grifters are so incessant and relentless with their garbage, most likely because being controversial is a cheap trick to making a lot of money, that there needs to be some filter or management to prevent actual discussion from being drowned out. Imagine we invited Stormfront to join HN for a day? Would these opposing ideas cause growth? Of course not.