4 ms·
If you don't like racism, sexism, and so on, you can always just let your eyes slide past those comments and focus on other ones instead. But we see that the I
by axguscbklp 6y ago
If you don't like racism, sexism, and so on, you can always just let your eyes slide past those comments and focus on other ones instead.
But we see that the Inquirer wants to be proactively censorious.
Why? Economic reasons? A religion-like desire to police what they suppose is morality? A desire to avoid giving their political opponents more power?
- mbg721 6y agoIt's bad for branding; the Inquirer is hand-wringing about having their name and logo next to things that they don't want to defend. This kind of organization really shouldn't be in the comment business at all, but got convinced it was necessary in order to keep up with the future.
- axguscbklp 6y agoYeah, personally I don't think that platforming implies endorsing, but I can understand why a company would be concerned.
- mbg721 6y agoIf not for "platforming = endorsing", cancel-culture wouldn't exist and we'd all live happier lives. It's all corporations acting like really shallow teenagers.
- cozuya 6y agoWhy does "racism, sexism, and so on" need to be platformed?
- axguscbklp 6y agoA lot of supposed "racism, sexism, etc..." is not actually bigotry, it's just people saying true things that happen to be taboo to say. As for real bigotry, as long as it stays just words, personally I don't mind it much or at all even when it's directed against groups that I belong to, at least as long as I'm free to fire back. Sometimes I find it amusing. As long as it doesn't cross over into people actually hurting others, I'd rather it be open to say. Words don't bother me.
- cozuya 6y agoWhat are some examples of "true things that happen to be taboo to say" that you can't say?
- axguscbklp 6y agoI think if I answered your question the HN moderation would see it as leading the discussion into ideological flamewar and crack down. This is based on my past experience.
- symlinkk 6y agoJust posting this to answer your question, not taking a position on these: “Women getting paid less in the workplace is because they purposely pick lower paying jobs, not because they’re discriminated against” “The BLM protests from last year were more riots than protests and were not justified considering the events that sparked them” “Transsexual people are experiencing a mental disorder and this shouldn’t be encouraged or accepted”
- the_only_law 6y ago> Just posting this to answer your question, not taking a position on these: How are you not taking a position on these if the question is in regards to "true things that happen to be taboo to say"?
- psychiatrist24 6y agoBecause believing things and taking a position are different things, maybe? It's actually one of the hallmarks of a cult (like wokeness) that to become a member, you must openly declare belief in obviously false things. Religions are another good example.
- Chris2048 6y agoThe first is a factual statement (is versus ought); The second semi-factual ("not justified" is a maybe subjective distinction); The last is purely subjective, both in the "shouldn't" and the somewhat vague definition of "mental disorder". That said, the furore around TS seems to be as much about enforcing terminology that appears to muddy-the-waters wrt biology i.e. what "woman" means, or should mean.
- anigbrowl 6y agoIf you don't like racism, sexism, and so on, you can always just let your eyes slide past those comments and focus on other ones instead. This is absurd, how are you supposed to slide past them without at least speed-reading the very content you're offended by? I fail to see why priority has to be given to the people who go out of their way to make others miserable.