5 ms·

It seems it's better to stay away entirely from certain sensitive topics. No matter your intentions, no matter what you actually think, it just takes a bit of m

It seems it's better to stay away entirely from certain sensitive topics. No matter your intentions, no matter what you actually think, it just takes a bit of misunderstanding or bad faith and the whole thing explode.

commandlinefan 5y ago
> better to stay away entirely from certain sensitive topics Yeah... but the world would be a better place if we didn't have to.
- orwin 5y ago
  Honestly, you don't have to.
  - username90 5y ago
    Getting cancelled doesn't just cost your job, it also costs friends and family and possibly your spouse as well. So even if the probability is small the consequences can be so huge that any person prone to anxiety won't be able to live with the risk and instead just changes their behaviour to avoid it. And when anxious people don't they just commit suicide when it happens, making the effective consequence death, avoiding that at all cost seems reasonable.
TravHatesMe 5y ago
So it is better to kowtow to the mob and let them burn the village down? I agree that it is best to avoid it but that does not mean that this one-sided parade of outrage should be tolerated.
WA 5y ago
No, just post anonymously. Way better. Then your voice is heard, but you don't have to suffer personal consequences.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  bingo - this; add to that higher stakes conversations, like political grouping, and you have started down the path of why anonymity is irreplaceable in public discourse.
- jader201 5y ago
  The irony is that taken out of context, this one sentiment sums up everything that is wrong with the internet and, more specifically, social media. When removed from consequences to our actions, we’re free to say pretty much anything we want. If everyone actually cared about the impact our words had on others, we wouldn’t have to resort to the using the same response that caused the problem in the first place.
- telesilla 5y ago
  As a woman who has been posting anonymously for years to avoid uninteresting personal attacks, I've come to enjoy and rely on it. Maybe the entire Real Names idiocy started by Google+ can be forgotten about and we can move on? Nothing wrong with an anonymous handle.
- lightgreen 5y ago
  The opinion of a person with some credibility, like name is N, lives in a city M, occupation is X is valued more than some of anonymous. Because nowadays there are too many fake accounts, even paid trolls, and talking to them (or even listening to them) is just waste of time, not a meaningful conversation. My twitter account is anonymous and I sometimes get replies like why would I want to talk to nobody. And they are right, they probably shouldn't.
  - WA 5y ago
    Anonymous accounts can have a reputation, too. I have been on HN since 2008. I wouldn’t like to have this account burned. In a way, I do have a reputation of not posting total shit, since I’m still here. Same is true for many communities where users gain popularity and trust if they participate in a meaningful way.
scottlamb 5y ago
You're not wrong, but it's pretty sad. When moderates are afraid to speak because of what extremists will say, we have a vicious cycle. [edit: btw I'm just making a general comment. I'm not saying anything in particular about RMS's or Noah Bradley's cancellation/re-emergence, and not just because of your advice. I haven't been following these events and don't know who said what or what actually happened. I don't want to be one of those uninformed voices in any direction.]
specialp 5y ago
This is probably good advice but that is exactly what is wrong with this. There's a negative gain to questioning if the person indeed even did something wrong or opening it to debate. There's positive gain for those piling on to the outrage as they are seen to be of good virtue.
njharman 5y ago
This is exactly why cancel culture is so toxic (and to lessor extent all "political correctness"). It is oppression, repression and censorship. It is mob rule, happy only when they get a lynching, no matter the guilt or innocence.
- clucas 5y ago
  Do you think Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, or Kevin Spacey should have been cancelled? I agree that it's overboard on a lot of things, especially in the past couple years, but I think it's important to remember the "cancel culture" started as a way to hold certain people to account who were exhibiting socially unacceptable behavior, but were not being socially punished. All societies have social norms, and all societies have informal (i.e. not through the legal system) means of enforcing those norms. There was a pretty significant gap in U.S. society's ability to enforce social norms against certain types of people, and social media filled that gap. Now some people have taken that tool farther than can reasonably be justified, but the best way to fight back against that excess is not to say "cancel culture is oppression!" because it DID fill a need in our society, it DID punish people who deserved to be punished, and I don't think we can get the cat back in the bag. So, don't fight the tool, fight the people using it where it isn't justified. (Who gets to decide when it's "justified" you ask? Well, we do. As a society. Together, online. We're going to have to figure it out. But if we go into a discussion about cancel culture assuming the other side is only interested in opression, repression, and censorship, it's not going to go well.)
  - caddemon 5y ago
    Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey were literally charged with crimes, and Matt Lauer probably could be. There is no reason in theory that the criminal justice system couldn't handle the cases you brought up. Whether we need Twitter in practice to hold the justice system accountable is another can of worms, but there's a huge difference between calling out criminals that slipped through the cracks and calling out people that did random things we've now decided should be punished despite having no formal process in existence to do so. I think people are way too impatient honestly. There will be things we will realize should be illegal, there will also be things we think we realized should be illegal but then turn out to be horribly wrong about. If people want next day enforcement there will be a lot of damage caused by these latter cases. I'd much rather a few assholes get off while we work out the proper way to enforce something (if at all). The problem with allowing the people as a completely unmoderated mob to decide things is twofold - group dynamics make people utterly irrational, and there is little way to hold someone accountable if they falsely set off a mob. There would need to be some sort of anonymous voting function if we wanted to combat the former. For the latter, how about we introduce a formal mechanism for suing a Tweeter for slander?
reidrac 5y ago
I think you are right. And it really bothers me because sometimes I see something really unfair, and it is hard to not say anything, but it is not real life and you only need a handful of anonymous people with enough time on their hands to make your life hell. Just because you're not anonymous. I almost regret being my real me online. We always had trolls, but this is something else. I almost deleted this comment before sending it. That's the level of self-censorship because what for? What's the point of sharing my opinion here? Is it worth it? Probably not!
- leesalminen 5y ago
  I find myself self-censoring more and more here on HN. I never had a problem until someone on here accused me of being a racist because my company consisted of primarily white people. It really messed with my head for a little bit. I mostly try and shy away from any contentious topic online now. I haven’t felt this pressure IRL (yet?) because people that know me know that I’m a very reasonable person who doesn’t hate anyone or any group.
  - darioush 5y ago
    > because people that know me know that I’m a very reasonable person who doesn’t hate anyone or any group That, and other aspects of reality may not interest the kind of people who would 'cancel' someone.
d0mine 5y ago
“When the Nazis arrested the Communists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist. When they locked up the Social Democrats, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat. When they arrested the trade unionists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist. When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.” https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niemöller https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niemöller
mixmastamyk 5y ago
Yes, and misunderstanding is not required, only an uncharitable interpretation, sometimes on purpose. There are quite a few topics where any appeal to logic is not condoned or appreciated. To the extent that mere mention is enough for the mob to turn. For example, any time a woman or child may have been mistreated. There are others of course, but too charged to list. Steer clear of these subjects, especially if on the autism spectrum and can't read that the discussion has changed to emotion-only mode.
asdf123wtf 5y ago
This is a rational reaction. It's also a great example of the chilling effect on speech, that cancelling can have. And when the chilling effect is strong enough, it atomizes and isolates individuals, makes them feel powerless, and creates a false sense of consensus around a particular issue. Domination and coercion over genuine persuasion -- that's the point.
73gfg 5y ago
That is their intention. To shutdown discourse and shift the Overton window. This flows onto preference falsification.
- orwin 5y ago
  I agree with you on the overton window part, and that's why i'm not against "cancel culture" even though i won't participate in an obvious bourgeois plot (/s). The social liberals are the 3rd political group who used it, i'd say at least as efficiently as the far right (first group that used internet to shift the Overton window) and more efficiently than the libertarian/fiscal liberals (second group). But as social liberals are far more numerous than the far right, the impact is magnified. I find it hypocrite that members of the first two group trying to open the overton window are calling them out on this.
  - filoeleven 5y ago
    Not sure why you’re being downvoted, but part of “the right,” American Christian evangelicals, did indeed create the format of cancel culture that we see today. The linked article has a decent overview. It’s not totally accurate: boycotts have been around much longer, and can serve broader purposes. I think it’s fair to say that evangelicals were the first to boycott companies based not on their systemic practices but on individual people’s lifestyles. I remember in the 90s when Amy Grant, a contemporary Christian music icon, was shunned because she got a divorce. Fast forward to 200X when the Dixie Chicks were then canceled for criticizing GWB. We could also jump back to Bill Clinton’s impeachment… https://religionnews.com/2020/06/17/evangelicals-perfected-cancel-culture-now-its-coming-for-them/ https://religionnews.com/2020/06/17/evangelicals-perfected-c...
karaterobot 5y ago
Before social media, it was normally considered impolite to discuss religion, politics, or other sensitive topics in the presence of people you don't know well. I think this is probably good advice on social media, though people forget it. I don't think it's self-censorship so much as a thing humans do to maintain the fragile network of relationships that holds society together. There are all kinds of things we want to do but refrain from doing in order to be polite: is not picking your nose in public self-censorship?

commandlinefan 5y ago

> better to stay away entirely from certain sensitive topics Yeah... but the world would be a better place if we didn't have to.

orwin 5y ago
Honestly, you don't have to.
- username90 5y ago
  Getting cancelled doesn't just cost your job, it also costs friends and family and possibly your spouse as well. So even if the probability is small the consequences can be so huge that any person prone to anxiety won't be able to live with the risk and instead just changes their behaviour to avoid it. And when anxious people don't they just commit suicide when it happens, making the effective consequence death, avoiding that at all cost seems reasonable.

TravHatesMe 5y ago

So it is better to kowtow to the mob and let them burn the village down? I agree that it is best to avoid it but that does not mean that this one-sided parade of outrage should be tolerated.

WA 5y ago

No, just post anonymously. Way better. Then your voice is heard, but you don't have to suffer personal consequences.

mistrial9 5y ago
bingo - this; add to that higher stakes conversations, like political grouping, and you have started down the path of why anonymity is irreplaceable in public discourse.
jader201 5y ago
The irony is that taken out of context, this one sentiment sums up everything that is wrong with the internet and, more specifically, social media. When removed from consequences to our actions, we’re free to say pretty much anything we want. If everyone actually cared about the impact our words had on others, we wouldn’t have to resort to the using the same response that caused the problem in the first place.
telesilla 5y ago
As a woman who has been posting anonymously for years to avoid uninteresting personal attacks, I've come to enjoy and rely on it. Maybe the entire Real Names idiocy started by Google+ can be forgotten about and we can move on? Nothing wrong with an anonymous handle.
lightgreen 5y ago
The opinion of a person with some credibility, like name is N, lives in a city M, occupation is X is valued more than some of anonymous. Because nowadays there are too many fake accounts, even paid trolls, and talking to them (or even listening to them) is just waste of time, not a meaningful conversation. My twitter account is anonymous and I sometimes get replies like why would I want to talk to nobody. And they are right, they probably shouldn't.
- WA 5y ago
  Anonymous accounts can have a reputation, too. I have been on HN since 2008. I wouldn’t like to have this account burned. In a way, I do have a reputation of not posting total shit, since I’m still here. Same is true for many communities where users gain popularity and trust if they participate in a meaningful way.

scottlamb 5y ago

You're not wrong, but it's pretty sad. When moderates are afraid to speak because of what extremists will say, we have a vicious cycle. [edit: btw I'm just making a general comment. I'm not saying anything in particular about RMS's or Noah Bradley's cancellation/re-emergence, and not just because of your advice. I haven't been following these events and don't know who said what or what actually happened. I don't want to be one of those uninformed voices in any direction.]

specialp 5y ago

This is probably good advice but that is exactly what is wrong with this. There's a negative gain to questioning if the person indeed even did something wrong or opening it to debate. There's positive gain for those piling on to the outrage as they are seen to be of good virtue.

njharman 5y ago

This is exactly why cancel culture is so toxic (and to lessor extent all "political correctness"). It is oppression, repression and censorship. It is mob rule, happy only when they get a lynching, no matter the guilt or innocence.

clucas 5y ago
Do you think Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, or Kevin Spacey should have been cancelled? I agree that it's overboard on a lot of things, especially in the past couple years, but I think it's important to remember the "cancel culture" started as a way to hold certain people to account who were exhibiting socially unacceptable behavior, but were not being socially punished. All societies have social norms, and all societies have informal (i.e. not through the legal system) means of enforcing those norms. There was a pretty significant gap in U.S. society's ability to enforce social norms against certain types of people, and social media filled that gap. Now some people have taken that tool farther than can reasonably be justified, but the best way to fight back against that excess is not to say "cancel culture is oppression!" because it DID fill a need in our society, it DID punish people who deserved to be punished, and I don't think we can get the cat back in the bag. So, don't fight the tool, fight the people using it where it isn't justified. (Who gets to decide when it's "justified" you ask? Well, we do. As a society. Together, online. We're going to have to figure it out. But if we go into a discussion about cancel culture assuming the other side is only interested in opression, repression, and censorship, it's not going to go well.)
- caddemon 5y ago
  Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey were literally charged with crimes, and Matt Lauer probably could be. There is no reason in theory that the criminal justice system couldn't handle the cases you brought up. Whether we need Twitter in practice to hold the justice system accountable is another can of worms, but there's a huge difference between calling out criminals that slipped through the cracks and calling out people that did random things we've now decided should be punished despite having no formal process in existence to do so. I think people are way too impatient honestly. There will be things we will realize should be illegal, there will also be things we think we realized should be illegal but then turn out to be horribly wrong about. If people want next day enforcement there will be a lot of damage caused by these latter cases. I'd much rather a few assholes get off while we work out the proper way to enforce something (if at all). The problem with allowing the people as a completely unmoderated mob to decide things is twofold - group dynamics make people utterly irrational, and there is little way to hold someone accountable if they falsely set off a mob. There would need to be some sort of anonymous voting function if we wanted to combat the former. For the latter, how about we introduce a formal mechanism for suing a Tweeter for slander?

reidrac 5y ago

I think you are right. And it really bothers me because sometimes I see something really unfair, and it is hard to not say anything, but it is not real life and you only need a handful of anonymous people with enough time on their hands to make your life hell. Just because you're not anonymous. I almost regret being my real me online. We always had trolls, but this is something else. I almost deleted this comment before sending it. That's the level of self-censorship because what for? What's the point of sharing my opinion here? Is it worth it? Probably not!

leesalminen 5y ago
I find myself self-censoring more and more here on HN. I never had a problem until someone on here accused me of being a racist because my company consisted of primarily white people. It really messed with my head for a little bit. I mostly try and shy away from any contentious topic online now. I haven’t felt this pressure IRL (yet?) because people that know me know that I’m a very reasonable person who doesn’t hate anyone or any group.
- darioush 5y ago
  > because people that know me know that I’m a very reasonable person who doesn’t hate anyone or any group That, and other aspects of reality may not interest the kind of people who would 'cancel' someone.

d0mine 5y ago

“When the Nazis arrested the Communists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist. When they locked up the Social Democrats, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat. When they arrested the trade unionists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist. When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.” https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niemöller https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niemöller

mixmastamyk 5y ago

Yes, and misunderstanding is not required, only an uncharitable interpretation, sometimes on purpose. There are quite a few topics where any appeal to logic is not condoned or appreciated. To the extent that mere mention is enough for the mob to turn. For example, any time a woman or child may have been mistreated. There are others of course, but too charged to list. Steer clear of these subjects, especially if on the autism spectrum and can't read that the discussion has changed to emotion-only mode.

asdf123wtf 5y ago

This is a rational reaction. It's also a great example of the chilling effect on speech, that cancelling can have. And when the chilling effect is strong enough, it atomizes and isolates individuals, makes them feel powerless, and creates a false sense of consensus around a particular issue. Domination and coercion over genuine persuasion -- that's the point.

73gfg 5y ago

That is their intention. To shutdown discourse and shift the Overton window. This flows onto preference falsification.

orwin 5y ago
I agree with you on the overton window part, and that's why i'm not against "cancel culture" even though i won't participate in an obvious bourgeois plot (/s). The social liberals are the 3rd political group who used it, i'd say at least as efficiently as the far right (first group that used internet to shift the Overton window) and more efficiently than the libertarian/fiscal liberals (second group). But as social liberals are far more numerous than the far right, the impact is magnified. I find it hypocrite that members of the first two group trying to open the overton window are calling them out on this.
- filoeleven 5y ago
  Not sure why you’re being downvoted, but part of “the right,” American Christian evangelicals, did indeed create the format of cancel culture that we see today. The linked article has a decent overview. It’s not totally accurate: boycotts have been around much longer, and can serve broader purposes. I think it’s fair to say that evangelicals were the first to boycott companies based not on their systemic practices but on individual people’s lifestyles. I remember in the 90s when Amy Grant, a contemporary Christian music icon, was shunned because she got a divorce. Fast forward to 200X when the Dixie Chicks were then canceled for criticizing GWB. We could also jump back to Bill Clinton’s impeachment… https://religionnews.com/2020/06/17/evangelicals-perfected-cancel-culture-now-its-coming-for-them/ https://religionnews.com/2020/06/17/evangelicals-perfected-c...

karaterobot 5y ago

Before social media, it was normally considered impolite to discuss religion, politics, or other sensitive topics in the presence of people you don't know well. I think this is probably good advice on social media, though people forget it. I don't think it's self-censorship so much as a thing humans do to maintain the fragile network of relationships that holds society together. There are all kinds of things we want to do but refrain from doing in order to be polite: is not picking your nose in public self-censorship?