15 ms·

Aren't you worried that by applying political labels like 'left' (or equally often seen in the US context: 'liberal') for something that does not really represe

Aren't you worried that by applying political labels like 'left' (or equally often seen in the US context: 'liberal') for something that does not really represent that political ideology, you are at risk of further polarizing such debates? This specific instance seems like an overreaction of some in both corporate and social media culture. One poster already pointed out that this is likely more about corporate fear of getting targetted by a vocal but ultimately small 'woke' crowd (there, another label, but at least a bit more specific than just generally someone who wishes to achieve basic goals like welfare, equality, and regulation of private industry). It does have all the looks of virtue signalling without any real justification. In debates like this sometimes a small number of loud, well-meaning but naive people get much more influence than they should for fear of the other being painted the bad guy, while a significant number of people who are actually affected by the underlying issues don't get heard at all.

emteycz 6y ago
Who on the right is pushing this stuff?
- benrbray 6y ago
  I believe the main point of the person you're replying to is that it's a relatively small, vocal minority of people on Twitter who care about this stuff, and the media snowballs it into a big ugly controversy for clicks. As far as I know, this is true also of the following examples of "the right" "cancelling" stuff: * Colin Kaepernick and kneelgate * calls to boycott Starbucks for celebrating an inclusive holiday season, rather than Christmas in particular * republican voters "cancelling" Mitt Romney and other republicans for being vocally anti-Trump, even though their political principles have not changed I can think of at least one more serious example that goes beyond just a vocal minority: The long, ongoing fight to teach children about LGBTQ issues in public schools. Teachers can be fired for simply revealing to their students that they have a same-sex partner. Not long ago, too, was it career-ending for a Hollywood actor to come out publicly as LGBTQ. Ellen comes to mind as an example.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    You're misinformed if you think this is a minority.
    - benrbray 6y ago
      Am I? I personally haven't met a single left-leaning adult who doesn't think Twitter's "cancel culture" has gotten out of hand. However, I've never lived in the bay area, where I understand things may be different. Can you say anything to demonstrate to me that it really is more than just a vocal minority of people? Perhaps we have different definitions of "cancel culture"? I don't consider the fall of e.g. Louis C.K. to be an example of cancel culture, but rather a clear-cut case of someone in a position of authority abusing their power, and rightfully losing public support for it. I do think the master vs main issue is silly, though. I'm not sure where you draw draw the line between "cancel culture" and "social consequences for toxic / abusive behavior in public".
      - spacemanmatt 6y ago
        People on the right participate in cancel culture all the time. It is truly deafening to hear them complain about things they do from their pulpits at FOX, Congress, and Senate.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        Anyone who watched TV in the late 90s and early 2000s should be very familiar with how right-wing[0] cancel culture works thanks to organizations like the AFA. [0] Religious-right, anyway
        spacemanmatt 6y ago
        It wasn't such a partisan thing in the 90s. Democrats let their right-leaning members get away with it all the time. Remember Tipper Gore?
        6y ago
- p_l 6y ago
  Right makes such bad performative takes louder in order to raise outrage and discredit political enemies. There's also the part where conservatives are Masters of Canceling since forever, including things like Hays code. It's easy to make people who are angry at outgroup not notice they are fleeced.
- orthecreedence 6y ago
  The woke movement is extremely anti cultural-right and extremely pro economic-right. Which right are you talking about?
clusterfish 6y ago
Assuming the US: Do you know a lot of "woke" people who aren't otherwise on the left? I don't. Do you know a lot of "left" people who actively speak against the "woke" crowd? I know very few. Almost all of them who speak on the topic, speak in unequivocal support of "woke" ideas and talking points. If "the left" doesn't want to be equated with the woke culture, they should publicly and consistently disown it. You know, in the same manner as they demand that conservatives disown Trump and his crowd to not be counted as racists. It's in everyone's power to start extinguishing the extremes. Until then, I'll take silence on your nearest extreme as your tacit approval of it.
- Freak_NL 6y ago
  > Do you know a lot of "left" people who actively speak against the "woke" crowd? Certainly. The majority really. That's in the Netherlands, but compared to the vocal internet crowd most people I know who vote on parties left of the political compass worry about climate, animal and human welfare, and inequality. Rarely will someone go all 'woke' and demand changes like this.
  - blfr 6y ago
    That's in the Netherlands Haha, GP specifically assumed US in the first line of his comment and then got responses from the Netherlands and twice from UK. Yeah, it's largely an American phenomenon so far but I wouldn't be too happy about it because American culture exports these things all over the world and Hollywood is among the most woke. While you're protesting this notion on HN, plenty of your countrymen are learning English from some of the wokest trash on Netflix.
    - nmstoker 6y ago
      Perhaps they chipped in because GPs phrase "Assuming the US" is not a very clear way of saying they want to talk specifically and exclusively about the US, or they thought it fair to broaden the discussion? I don't see how your sweeping generalisation in the last paragraph adds to the considered discussion here either.
    - 6y ago
vmception 6y ago
> Aren't you worried that by applying political labels like 'left' (or equally often seen in the US context: 'liberal') for something that does not really represent that political ideology I don't have the experience of any other group doing this. I agree that it is not inherently a political ideology. The people involved proudly proclaim to be left and liberal. I think it is important to say that because I know people in other parts of the country that see these as insults and would be surprised to know that people commonly self-identify as these terms. I find that this group thinks their behavior is better and more helpful than apathy, "silence", and the idea of rampant exclusionary hate from the right. When its really not better, its different, but its not more helpful. There is absolutely a constant threat from people afraid of bird watchers in a park, people that blend into their ranks and are willing to weaponize their understanding of race, two seconds after donating to the Democratic Party.
- Freak_NL 6y ago
  The problem lies not in that you are wrong in concluding that these people are adherents of leftists ideologies (most are), but that you are falling for the pars pro toto fallacy: people who think that 'master' is an offensive word to use in a source code repository are 'left/liberal', thus all or most of 'the left/liberals' are such people. You are saying 'this group thinks' as if all people who would identify as adhering to leftist ideologies (from the extremes to common social democracy) act like this. You are trying to stuff people into boxes: you are either team A or team B. That is polarization; something we can sorely do without.
  - hayd 6y ago
    The problem lies that there is not enough (any?) push back from this kind of garbage (and specifically in this case) from the 'left/liberals'. There needs to be push-back if they [those left/liberals not in this camp] want to disassociate. But where is it? I don't think there is appetite for this argument. I know many of left/liberal-types (in the Bay Area) all who either believe, or accept this as silly but somehow think it is meaningful to some people and so should be gone along with...
newswasboring 6y ago
> Aren't you worried that by applying political labels like 'left' (or equally often seen in the US context: 'liberal') for something that does not really represent that political ideology, you are at risk of further polarizing such debates? > It does have all the looks of virtue signalling without any real justification. If you combine both the statements, you are committing a no true Scotsman fallacy.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  I don’t think so. It’s not that no true Scotsmen are idiots, it’s just that the idiots are not representative. Maybe 10% of Scotsmen are idiots. The other 90% are fine. The idiots are just very loud on social media.
  - newswasboring 6y ago
    This is a soft form of the same argument. Whatever may be the proportion of those people, the community still has to own up to it if this portion exists.
    - tremon 6y ago
      the community still has to own up to it Why? For what purpose are you burdening 90% of True Scotsmen with an obligation of your choosing?
      - newswasboring 6y ago
        Because it's a part of their community and each community needs to take care of its own problems.
- runarberg 6y ago
  When it comes to political ideology invoking a no true Scotsman is not always invalid. As an example, as a leftist I can say: “A socialist revolution without social justice is not socialist”. Yes, this is a no true Scotsman fallacy, but here I am merely disavowing a subgroup of people that might share my economic believes that workers ought to take over the means of production, but fail to see that the racial injustice in our economic system is part of the problem. In my view, if you don’t see that, you are not a real leftist.
AdrianB1 6y ago
Calling welfare or regulation "basic goals" is misleading: the first is not basic as there is no right to welfare, but forcing others to support welfare while regulation is not a purpose by itself, it is a means to achieve specific goals. Seeding wrong ideas in what seems to be a neutral context is not nice™.
jswizzy 6y ago
Marxism isn't a political ideology?
- nivenkos 6y ago
  What has renaming the master branch got to do with Marxism?
  - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
    Slavery as class struggle seems a popular method of argumentation, but it's hard to pin down that logic when any discussion of it generates anger instead of explanation.
- orthecreedence 6y ago
  Cultural left, ie, "woke" and economic left are two very, very different things. Americans have this wonderful way of completely slaughtering their political terms.
1337shadow 6y ago
> Aren't you worried that by applying political labels like 'left' (or equally often seen in the US context: 'liberal') for something that does not really represent that political ideology, you are at risk of further polarizing such debates? That's missing polsci 101, left/right exist, that's why they have names, not the opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
marknutter 6y ago
This goes way beyond just trying to get ahead of a potential PR disaster. I can think of nobody out there in non-nerd world that would've raised a stink about the word "master" being used in some programming context, just like they haven't raised a stink about the term MC. This is ultra-woke privileged white tech lefties who truly do feel like their fighting for social justice by doing this kind of thing.

emteycz 6y ago

Who on the right is pushing this stuff?

benrbray 6y ago
I believe the main point of the person you're replying to is that it's a relatively small, vocal minority of people on Twitter who care about this stuff, and the media snowballs it into a big ugly controversy for clicks. As far as I know, this is true also of the following examples of "the right" "cancelling" stuff: * Colin Kaepernick and kneelgate * calls to boycott Starbucks for celebrating an inclusive holiday season, rather than Christmas in particular * republican voters "cancelling" Mitt Romney and other republicans for being vocally anti-Trump, even though their political principles have not changed I can think of at least one more serious example that goes beyond just a vocal minority: The long, ongoing fight to teach children about LGBTQ issues in public schools. Teachers can be fired for simply revealing to their students that they have a same-sex partner. Not long ago, too, was it career-ending for a Hollywood actor to come out publicly as LGBTQ. Ellen comes to mind as an example.
- waheoo 6y ago
  You're misinformed if you think this is a minority.
  - benrbray 6y ago
    Am I? I personally haven't met a single left-leaning adult who doesn't think Twitter's "cancel culture" has gotten out of hand. However, I've never lived in the bay area, where I understand things may be different. Can you say anything to demonstrate to me that it really is more than just a vocal minority of people? Perhaps we have different definitions of "cancel culture"? I don't consider the fall of e.g. Louis C.K. to be an example of cancel culture, but rather a clear-cut case of someone in a position of authority abusing their power, and rightfully losing public support for it. I do think the master vs main issue is silly, though. I'm not sure where you draw draw the line between "cancel culture" and "social consequences for toxic / abusive behavior in public".
    - spacemanmatt 6y ago
      People on the right participate in cancel culture all the time. It is truly deafening to hear them complain about things they do from their pulpits at FOX, Congress, and Senate.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        Anyone who watched TV in the late 90s and early 2000s should be very familiar with how right-wing[0] cancel culture works thanks to organizations like the AFA. [0] Religious-right, anyway
        spacemanmatt 6y ago
        It wasn't such a partisan thing in the 90s. Democrats let their right-leaning members get away with it all the time. Remember Tipper Gore?
        6y ago
p_l 6y ago
Right makes such bad performative takes louder in order to raise outrage and discredit political enemies. There's also the part where conservatives are Masters of Canceling since forever, including things like Hays code. It's easy to make people who are angry at outgroup not notice they are fleeced.
orthecreedence 6y ago
The woke movement is extremely anti cultural-right and extremely pro economic-right. Which right are you talking about?

clusterfish 6y ago

Assuming the US: Do you know a lot of "woke" people who aren't otherwise on the left? I don't. Do you know a lot of "left" people who actively speak against the "woke" crowd? I know very few. Almost all of them who speak on the topic, speak in unequivocal support of "woke" ideas and talking points. If "the left" doesn't want to be equated with the woke culture, they should publicly and consistently disown it. You know, in the same manner as they demand that conservatives disown Trump and his crowd to not be counted as racists. It's in everyone's power to start extinguishing the extremes. Until then, I'll take silence on your nearest extreme as your tacit approval of it.

Freak_NL 6y ago
> Do you know a lot of "left" people who actively speak against the "woke" crowd? Certainly. The majority really. That's in the Netherlands, but compared to the vocal internet crowd most people I know who vote on parties left of the political compass worry about climate, animal and human welfare, and inequality. Rarely will someone go all 'woke' and demand changes like this.
- blfr 6y ago
  That's in the Netherlands Haha, GP specifically assumed US in the first line of his comment and then got responses from the Netherlands and twice from UK. Yeah, it's largely an American phenomenon so far but I wouldn't be too happy about it because American culture exports these things all over the world and Hollywood is among the most woke. While you're protesting this notion on HN, plenty of your countrymen are learning English from some of the wokest trash on Netflix.
  - nmstoker 6y ago
    Perhaps they chipped in because GPs phrase "Assuming the US" is not a very clear way of saying they want to talk specifically and exclusively about the US, or they thought it fair to broaden the discussion? I don't see how your sweeping generalisation in the last paragraph adds to the considered discussion here either.
  - 6y ago

vmception 6y ago

> Aren't you worried that by applying political labels like 'left' (or equally often seen in the US context: 'liberal') for something that does not really represent that political ideology I don't have the experience of any other group doing this. I agree that it is not inherently a political ideology. The people involved proudly proclaim to be left and liberal. I think it is important to say that because I know people in other parts of the country that see these as insults and would be surprised to know that people commonly self-identify as these terms. I find that this group thinks their behavior is better and more helpful than apathy, "silence", and the idea of rampant exclusionary hate from the right. When its really not better, its different, but its not more helpful. There is absolutely a constant threat from people afraid of bird watchers in a park, people that blend into their ranks and are willing to weaponize their understanding of race, two seconds after donating to the Democratic Party.

Freak_NL 6y ago
The problem lies not in that you are wrong in concluding that these people are adherents of leftists ideologies (most are), but that you are falling for the pars pro toto fallacy: people who think that 'master' is an offensive word to use in a source code repository are 'left/liberal', thus all or most of 'the left/liberals' are such people. You are saying 'this group thinks' as if all people who would identify as adhering to leftist ideologies (from the extremes to common social democracy) act like this. You are trying to stuff people into boxes: you are either team A or team B. That is polarization; something we can sorely do without.
- hayd 6y ago
  The problem lies that there is not enough (any?) push back from this kind of garbage (and specifically in this case) from the 'left/liberals'. There needs to be push-back if they [those left/liberals not in this camp] want to disassociate. But where is it? I don't think there is appetite for this argument. I know many of left/liberal-types (in the Bay Area) all who either believe, or accept this as silly but somehow think it is meaningful to some people and so should be gone along with...

newswasboring 6y ago

> Aren't you worried that by applying political labels like 'left' (or equally often seen in the US context: 'liberal') for something that does not really represent that political ideology, you are at risk of further polarizing such debates? > It does have all the looks of virtue signalling without any real justification. If you combine both the statements, you are committing a no true Scotsman fallacy.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago
I don’t think so. It’s not that no true Scotsmen are idiots, it’s just that the idiots are not representative. Maybe 10% of Scotsmen are idiots. The other 90% are fine. The idiots are just very loud on social media.
- newswasboring 6y ago
  This is a soft form of the same argument. Whatever may be the proportion of those people, the community still has to own up to it if this portion exists.
  - tremon 6y ago
    the community still has to own up to it Why? For what purpose are you burdening 90% of True Scotsmen with an obligation of your choosing?
    - newswasboring 6y ago
      Because it's a part of their community and each community needs to take care of its own problems.
runarberg 6y ago
When it comes to political ideology invoking a no true Scotsman is not always invalid. As an example, as a leftist I can say: “A socialist revolution without social justice is not socialist”. Yes, this is a no true Scotsman fallacy, but here I am merely disavowing a subgroup of people that might share my economic believes that workers ought to take over the means of production, but fail to see that the racial injustice in our economic system is part of the problem. In my view, if you don’t see that, you are not a real leftist.

AdrianB1 6y ago

Calling welfare or regulation "basic goals" is misleading: the first is not basic as there is no right to welfare, but forcing others to support welfare while regulation is not a purpose by itself, it is a means to achieve specific goals. Seeding wrong ideas in what seems to be a neutral context is not nice™.

jswizzy 6y ago

Marxism isn't a political ideology?

nivenkos 6y ago
What has renaming the master branch got to do with Marxism?
- readflaggedcomm 6y ago
  Slavery as class struggle seems a popular method of argumentation, but it's hard to pin down that logic when any discussion of it generates anger instead of explanation.
orthecreedence 6y ago
Cultural left, ie, "woke" and economic left are two very, very different things. Americans have this wonderful way of completely slaughtering their political terms.

1337shadow 6y ago

> Aren't you worried that by applying political labels like 'left' (or equally often seen in the US context: 'liberal') for something that does not really represent that political ideology, you are at risk of further polarizing such debates? That's missing polsci 101, left/right exist, that's why they have names, not the opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

marknutter 6y ago

This goes way beyond just trying to get ahead of a potential PR disaster. I can think of nobody out there in non-nerd world that would've raised a stink about the word "master" being used in some programming context, just like they haven't raised a stink about the term MC. This is ultra-woke privileged white tech lefties who truly do feel like their fighting for social justice by doing this kind of thing.