6 ms·

Why I’m Leaving Mumford and Sons

30 points by curmudgeon22 5y ago

killingtime74 5y ago
Why is this on HN? Should I post some Britney Spears news next
- wreath 5y ago
  Did you read it though? The theme/reason why he left is something that's been discussed in HN over and over. Edit: Sorry for the snarky question.
  - underseacables 5y ago
    Hey, let’s not question whether or not someone has read the article. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - wreath 5y ago
      Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't aware of it.
- curmudgeon22 5y ago
  I think the narrative around the why is interesting - discussion of self-censorship and the impacts of politics and social media on how we interact.
- dec0dedab0de 5y ago
  If there was something you find interesting about Britney, then sure post and if others find it interesting it will get upvoted. I bet the comments about her conservatorship would be very interesting. I suspect this story is on HN because of the online bullying aspects of it.
moepstar 5y ago
As someone having been at 4 concerts of the guys... M&S went to shit - well, at least being average - pretty fast. After "Sigh no more" and "Babel", for some reasone they thought changing their signature style significantly (an alliteration, neat) was going to work. It did not. And they know it - whenever you're going to a concert, they pretty much avoid as much as possible playing anything from "Wilder Mind" (i like to call that one "Milder Wind") or "Delta" because the crowd will be unfazed. Edit: thanks for the downvotes, why-so-fucking-ever. Also, if you have heard anything of the last 2 albums - do you really think they still have a spot open for someone playing a banjo?
- djrogers 5y ago
  The downvotes are likely because a) this post has nothing to do with their music, and b) music critics tend to come off as sanctimonious prigs.
  - moepstar 5y ago
    I made an edit, regarding a) As i said, my gut feeling is that his career with M&S was over anyways - you'd be hard pressed hearing him playing the banjo on any of the recent 2 albums. Yet, it's sad seeing him throwing the towel, for whatever reason. I understand it's tough to stand up against an internet mob, but in my opinion this is just the tip of the iceberg regarding reasons for him to quit.
    - zigzaggy 5y ago
      I’m glad you posted the follow up comment because I missed your point at first. But I can actually see your point, that maybe he’s making a political statement to avoid the more ugly truth. It does sound like a hassle to be famous enough to get cancelled. I like the idea of niche fame, where you’re some huge fish in a tiny pond - just enough to make a living but not enough to get cancelled by the horde
wreath 5y ago
I have no idea what the book is about, but judging by the title (Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy) I can only say that this mob behavior/cancel culture just adds one more data point to support the book. Twitter is absolutely the worst place to discuss politics (or anything?) and the twitter-way of communication has ruined the way we discuss politics in general, even in real life.
- bjowen 5y ago
  The author is a bit of a serial provocateur, and is one of the exacerbating forces of the twitter discourse - which you might also be able to distil from the book’s title. He has dined out on making a boogeyman out of student protests, BLM and “antifa” [0] among far-right media outlets and more credulous mainstream ones. Regardless of your personal political orientation, if you don’t like the way Twitter has changed the way people talk about politics, it’s probably fair to assume you’re not thrilled about reportage that portrays its subjects as radical democracy-destroyers, rather than people with agency and motivations and grievances that may well be legitimate. And whatever your feelings on _that_, the people who are the subjects of that kind of reportage tend to find it a bit of an irritation. Not wishing to detract from the awfulness of this fellow’s treatment, he’s strayed into the crossfire of culture war BS, that he probably had no idea was there, in a way that appears to stake out a position. But if he’d done the same with some half-baked Pizza- or Russiagate exposé, you might expect something similar, just from different accounts. [0] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andy-ngo-right-wing-troll-antifa-877914/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andy-n...
underseacables 5y ago
Im glad this was vouched and brought back because it should be on HN. The internet has enabled cancel culture and turned it into a virus, able to infect and destroy anyone, anywhere. Would this level of violence and attack on someone for speaking their mind be so prevalent without the internet? Maybe. The internet has certainly made drive by canceling easier. I’m not exactly a fan of M&S but jeewiz, why can’t someone say hey “I liked your book” which doesn’t advocate for violence or harm, and be attacked and canceled for it? Cancel culture is a sickness on society with no end until it consumes everyone. I just hope it turns back and starts consuming the arm chair radicals that support it. *Edited for grammar and I made a small mistake in clarity.
- jfengel 5y ago
  why can’t someone say hey “I liked your book” which doesn’t advocate for violence or harm, and be attacked and canceled for it? Cancel culture is a sickness on society with no end until it consumes everyone So writing those two sentences, one after the other, didn't give you a moment's pause?
  - underseacables 5y ago
    Not in the slightest. I firmly believe that everyone should be able to speak their mind no matter what it is so long as it does not advocate for violence or harm to another person. They should not lose their job, they should not be ostracized, and companies should be held civilly liable if they terminate someone for speech outside of the workplace. It’s called a free democracy, perhaps you might be interested in checking it out sometime
    - ameetgaitonde 5y ago
      The problem with your logic is two-fold, (1) speech doesn't have to advocate for violence or harm for it to create violence and harm, and (2) you're conflating government with culture. As a group of people, a company is entitled to free speech just like an individual. By restricting their ability to terminate someone for their poor representation of the company, you're effectively forcing them to accept speech that could jeopardize their ability to conduct future business. A free democracy means speech is free from restriction by the government, but doesn't mean the person speaking is free of consequences from their peers.
parrellel 5y ago
Such a weird hill to die on, supporting the concrete milkshakes and staged bar fights guy.
- lumberingjack 5y ago
  He's just promoting Jewish culture that's why he shoehorned a bunch of stuff about Holocaust in there
  - dang 5y ago
    You can't do this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27734285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27734285 here. I've banned the account.
- bjowen 5y ago
  [edit] This is relevant context, which goes to the author of the book’s reliability as a source of information. The mobbing of someone who (implicitly) endorses the political posture of the author is of course a cause for concern, but you’d think there’d be more desire to understand why that might have happened, beyond just agreeing that Thing Bad.
stillbourne 5y ago
I don't get it, the religious right has perfected boycotting over the last 50 years. Starting with burning records of the Beetles because John Lennon said they're bigger than Jesus and moving to burning disco albums. In the 90s the AFA said as long as Waldenbooks sells porn we'll boycott Kmart, the then owner of Waldenbooks. They've boycotted Disney, the Dixie Chicks, Target, French Fries, the Teletubbies, JCPenny's because of Ellen, to one of their own, Rob Bell, for questioning if non-christians go to hell. But when "them bleed'n heart liberals" do it, its called "cancel culture?" Why? Its a tactic that the right has been using for years but suddenly it bad form? This definition of cancel culture is bullshit. Everyone has always been free to choose from whom they wish to purchase goods and services, and boycotts have been weaponized by the right for practically the last century. As much as I've disagreed with many of the motivations for those boycotts, I've never disagreed with the freedom of speech they have to perform a boycott. Why is it suddenly bad just because the "radical antifa left" is doing it?
- darnoc2 5y ago
  Don’t you dare point out their hypocrisy!!! It damages the narrative and impinges on their inalienable right to be sanctimonious and holier than tho! /S
- curmudgeon22 5y ago
  I think there’s some truth to this. To me it seems like the social media amplification and pile ons take it to another level though.
  - stillbourne 5y ago
    Social media just makes it more visible. This kind of activity used to be social but it was hidden behind church doors, just because its more visible doesn't bring it to a new level its been at this level for a long time already.
- benjohnson 5y ago
  For me, there's a difference between boycotting a powerful corporation by not buying their products or services and starting an angry Twitter mob to badger someone so much that they quit a large aspect of their life to protect their friends and family. Neither tactic is exclusive to the left or right certainly.
zczc 5y ago
Thanks to this post I've reread Solzhenitsyn's Live Not by Lies [1]. It is still relevant today as an ethics guide, not only in the context of the Cancel culture. [1] https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/live-not-by-lies https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/live-not-by-lies
lumberingjack 5y ago
So just another Jew causing issues problems that shouldn't exist I'm glad they got canceled and I don't hear them on the radio anymore

30 points by curmudgeon22 5y ago

killingtime74 5y ago

Why is this on HN? Should I post some Britney Spears news next

wreath 5y ago
Did you read it though? The theme/reason why he left is something that's been discussed in HN over and over. Edit: Sorry for the snarky question.
- underseacables 5y ago
  Hey, let’s not question whether or not someone has read the article. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - wreath 5y ago
    Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't aware of it.
curmudgeon22 5y ago
I think the narrative around the why is interesting - discussion of self-censorship and the impacts of politics and social media on how we interact.
dec0dedab0de 5y ago
If there was something you find interesting about Britney, then sure post and if others find it interesting it will get upvoted. I bet the comments about her conservatorship would be very interesting. I suspect this story is on HN because of the online bullying aspects of it.

moepstar 5y ago

As someone having been at 4 concerts of the guys... M&S went to shit - well, at least being average - pretty fast. After "Sigh no more" and "Babel", for some reasone they thought changing their signature style significantly (an alliteration, neat) was going to work. It did not. And they know it - whenever you're going to a concert, they pretty much avoid as much as possible playing anything from "Wilder Mind" (i like to call that one "Milder Wind") or "Delta" because the crowd will be unfazed. Edit: thanks for the downvotes, why-so-fucking-ever. Also, if you have heard anything of the last 2 albums - do you really think they still have a spot open for someone playing a banjo?

djrogers 5y ago
The downvotes are likely because a) this post has nothing to do with their music, and b) music critics tend to come off as sanctimonious prigs.
- moepstar 5y ago
  I made an edit, regarding a) As i said, my gut feeling is that his career with M&S was over anyways - you'd be hard pressed hearing him playing the banjo on any of the recent 2 albums. Yet, it's sad seeing him throwing the towel, for whatever reason. I understand it's tough to stand up against an internet mob, but in my opinion this is just the tip of the iceberg regarding reasons for him to quit.
  - zigzaggy 5y ago
    I’m glad you posted the follow up comment because I missed your point at first. But I can actually see your point, that maybe he’s making a political statement to avoid the more ugly truth. It does sound like a hassle to be famous enough to get cancelled. I like the idea of niche fame, where you’re some huge fish in a tiny pond - just enough to make a living but not enough to get cancelled by the horde

wreath 5y ago

I have no idea what the book is about, but judging by the title (Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy) I can only say that this mob behavior/cancel culture just adds one more data point to support the book. Twitter is absolutely the worst place to discuss politics (or anything?) and the twitter-way of communication has ruined the way we discuss politics in general, even in real life.

bjowen 5y ago
The author is a bit of a serial provocateur, and is one of the exacerbating forces of the twitter discourse - which you might also be able to distil from the book’s title. He has dined out on making a boogeyman out of student protests, BLM and “antifa” [0] among far-right media outlets and more credulous mainstream ones. Regardless of your personal political orientation, if you don’t like the way Twitter has changed the way people talk about politics, it’s probably fair to assume you’re not thrilled about reportage that portrays its subjects as radical democracy-destroyers, rather than people with agency and motivations and grievances that may well be legitimate. And whatever your feelings on _that_, the people who are the subjects of that kind of reportage tend to find it a bit of an irritation. Not wishing to detract from the awfulness of this fellow’s treatment, he’s strayed into the crossfire of culture war BS, that he probably had no idea was there, in a way that appears to stake out a position. But if he’d done the same with some half-baked Pizza- or Russiagate exposé, you might expect something similar, just from different accounts. [0] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andy-ngo-right-wing-troll-antifa-877914/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andy-n...

underseacables 5y ago

Im glad this was vouched and brought back because it should be on HN. The internet has enabled cancel culture and turned it into a virus, able to infect and destroy anyone, anywhere. Would this level of violence and attack on someone for speaking their mind be so prevalent without the internet? Maybe. The internet has certainly made drive by canceling easier. I’m not exactly a fan of M&S but jeewiz, why can’t someone say hey “I liked your book” which doesn’t advocate for violence or harm, and be attacked and canceled for it? Cancel culture is a sickness on society with no end until it consumes everyone. I just hope it turns back and starts consuming the arm chair radicals that support it. *Edited for grammar and I made a small mistake in clarity.

jfengel 5y ago
why can’t someone say hey “I liked your book” which doesn’t advocate for violence or harm, and be attacked and canceled for it? Cancel culture is a sickness on society with no end until it consumes everyone So writing those two sentences, one after the other, didn't give you a moment's pause?
- underseacables 5y ago
  Not in the slightest. I firmly believe that everyone should be able to speak their mind no matter what it is so long as it does not advocate for violence or harm to another person. They should not lose their job, they should not be ostracized, and companies should be held civilly liable if they terminate someone for speech outside of the workplace. It’s called a free democracy, perhaps you might be interested in checking it out sometime
  - ameetgaitonde 5y ago
    The problem with your logic is two-fold, (1) speech doesn't have to advocate for violence or harm for it to create violence and harm, and (2) you're conflating government with culture. As a group of people, a company is entitled to free speech just like an individual. By restricting their ability to terminate someone for their poor representation of the company, you're effectively forcing them to accept speech that could jeopardize their ability to conduct future business. A free democracy means speech is free from restriction by the government, but doesn't mean the person speaking is free of consequences from their peers.

parrellel 5y ago

Such a weird hill to die on, supporting the concrete milkshakes and staged bar fights guy.

lumberingjack 5y ago
He's just promoting Jewish culture that's why he shoehorned a bunch of stuff about Holocaust in there
- dang 5y ago
  You can't do this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27734285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27734285 here. I've banned the account.
bjowen 5y ago
[edit] This is relevant context, which goes to the author of the book’s reliability as a source of information. The mobbing of someone who (implicitly) endorses the political posture of the author is of course a cause for concern, but you’d think there’d be more desire to understand why that might have happened, beyond just agreeing that Thing Bad.

stillbourne 5y ago

I don't get it, the religious right has perfected boycotting over the last 50 years. Starting with burning records of the Beetles because John Lennon said they're bigger than Jesus and moving to burning disco albums. In the 90s the AFA said as long as Waldenbooks sells porn we'll boycott Kmart, the then owner of Waldenbooks. They've boycotted Disney, the Dixie Chicks, Target, French Fries, the Teletubbies, JCPenny's because of Ellen, to one of their own, Rob Bell, for questioning if non-christians go to hell. But when "them bleed'n heart liberals" do it, its called "cancel culture?" Why? Its a tactic that the right has been using for years but suddenly it bad form? This definition of cancel culture is bullshit. Everyone has always been free to choose from whom they wish to purchase goods and services, and boycotts have been weaponized by the right for practically the last century. As much as I've disagreed with many of the motivations for those boycotts, I've never disagreed with the freedom of speech they have to perform a boycott. Why is it suddenly bad just because the "radical antifa left" is doing it?

darnoc2 5y ago
Don’t you dare point out their hypocrisy!!! It damages the narrative and impinges on their inalienable right to be sanctimonious and holier than tho! /S
curmudgeon22 5y ago
I think there’s some truth to this. To me it seems like the social media amplification and pile ons take it to another level though.
- stillbourne 5y ago
  Social media just makes it more visible. This kind of activity used to be social but it was hidden behind church doors, just because its more visible doesn't bring it to a new level its been at this level for a long time already.
benjohnson 5y ago
For me, there's a difference between boycotting a powerful corporation by not buying their products or services and starting an angry Twitter mob to badger someone so much that they quit a large aspect of their life to protect their friends and family. Neither tactic is exclusive to the left or right certainly.

zczc 5y ago

Thanks to this post I've reread Solzhenitsyn's Live Not by Lies [1]. It is still relevant today as an ethics guide, not only in the context of the Cancel culture. [1] https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/live-not-by-lies https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/live-not-by-lies

lumberingjack 5y ago

So just another Jew causing issues problems that shouldn't exist I'm glad they got canceled and I don't hear them on the radio anymore