3 ms·

> You're talking about the idea of some one who hurts and abuses other people no longer being allowed to be a part of polite society, and the people that want t

by GDC7 5y ago

> You're talking about the idea of some one who hurts and abuses other people no longer being allowed to be a part of polite society, and the people that want that to be the case, like its a bad thing. No , the bad thing is that when somebody is dragged out in the court of public opinion all the positive contributions of that particular individual are not taken into consideration. I am now a wide eyed utopian, I am a very practical person. As a practical person I tell you that if society doesn't let the good things that one does offset the negative flaws that one might have....then people will ask themselves if it's worth to do good things at all. The SJWs I mentioned (and suspect also you) would retroactively cancel Richard Feynman because he grabbed by the waist some Brazilian dancer while he was teaching in Rio. Even if that meant succumbing to Hitler's Nazi Germany. Dick Feynman earned the right to dance with as many Brazilian girls as he wanted.

bigbillheck 5y ago
You're going to have to explain what the Manhattan Project had to do with victory in Europe. And after that, please explain why Feynman's contributions to it were so critical. Finally, I'd like to ask for an explanation as to how Feynman's actions starting in 1949 could have had a causal effect on a war that ended in 1945.
- GDC7 5y ago
  > Finally, I'd like to ask for an explanation as to how Feynman's actions starting in 1949 could have had a causal effect on a war that ended in 1945. That's exactly what I mean, thank you! You have stressed the whole point! Society feels comfortable in canceling people because these people already gave their contribution and for sure the person being canceled can't retroactively destroy all their contributions. If they could that'd be a powerful weapon of self defense, some sort of dead man switch against the mob. But they don't, hence society is emboldened to destroy that person because it's the path of least resistence towards getting what it really wants: Separating the contributions from the person who made them, thus making sure that they cannot benefit from them, socially or financially. Society would think long and hard before canceling people if it also meant automatically removing all their contributions. I bet you society would have not canceled Harvey Weinstein if it also meant the complete disappearence of: - Reservoir dogs - Pulp Fiction - Kill Bill - The Aviator - Gangs of New York - Wolf of Wall Street . . . Hypocrisy
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    Society "cancelled" Harvey Weinstein because he raped multiple women, to the point where it was an in-joke in Hollywood. I don't think he's much of a good example except to identify how long it takes for justice to reach someone. Maybe someone like Aziz Ansari is a better example... except he wasn't really cancelled - just hit a bump in his career that he had to acknowledge. (Similarly, Louis CK). I absolutely would be OK with deleting every record of those movies, some of which are my favorites, if there were any point in doing so. The important thing is that a rapist is held accountable!
    - GDC7 5y ago
      > Society "cancelled" Harvey Weinstein because he raped multiple women, to the point where it was an in-joke in Hollywood. I don't think he's much of a good example except to identify how long it takes for justice to reach someone. He caused lifechanging trauma to 10-20 people. That is not excusable. What is not brought up in the assesment of his persona is the amount of entertainment he provided to the world. The aggregate of 40 hours of AAA movies being enjoyed by 3 billion people between theatre, DVD, streaming, TV and piracy. But of course you can't call 3 billion people up to provide their account of what positive impact Wienstin had on their lives. Plus while the trauma caused is substantial, the entertainment provided to the aforementioned 3 billion people is marginal. When you judge somebody you should see the whole picture.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > if it also meant the complete disappearence of: I don't think he had anything to do with the script abd photography of these movies. Maybe too much with casting teenage actresses, but the movies would have been "managed" (rent-seek) by some other production companies, don't worry.
  - bigbillheck 5y ago
    > That's exactly what I mean, thank you! You have stressed the whole point! That aside, please answer my other two questions. (And for the rest of your post, maybe the movies we'd have had in the absence of Weinstein would have been better)
edmundsauto 5y ago
Feynman is a weird example - he talks about pickup culture and getting women to sleep with him. He also was a bad husband, spent a lot of time in a strip club drawing "art", and chased after Las Vegas Showgirls. I'm not certain he would have been cancelled - I think that's mostly projection - but it's useful to acknowledge he wasn't exactly a "good guy", despite his contributions to science. (The screed about the Nazis has already been debunked in another comment.)
- GDC7 5y ago
  > but it's useful to acknowledge he wasn't exactly a "good guy" What exactly constitutes a "good guy" for you? The only possible definition is somebody who wastes away his life, doesn't have fun, works all the times and gifts the discoveries of his endless hours of work to his subordinates so that they can claim as their own. Obviously rejects any compensation above minimum wage for the whole ordeal, so that he could not even have the temptation to spend, because he needs that minimum amount to eat. Not even Jesus Christ would manage to make it into your tier of "good guys". What has the world come to...Feynman being thrown under the bus on HN.
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    To me, it's someone of character who doesn't treat the other sex like objects or puzzles to be solved. Or, if they do and learn from it, doesn't brag about the exploits in their memoirs. There is also the dad test - would you want them dating your daughter?

by GDC7 5y ago

bigbillheck 5y ago

You're going to have to explain what the Manhattan Project had to do with victory in Europe. And after that, please explain why Feynman's contributions to it were so critical. Finally, I'd like to ask for an explanation as to how Feynman's actions starting in 1949 could have had a causal effect on a war that ended in 1945.

GDC7 5y ago
> Finally, I'd like to ask for an explanation as to how Feynman's actions starting in 1949 could have had a causal effect on a war that ended in 1945. That's exactly what I mean, thank you! You have stressed the whole point! Society feels comfortable in canceling people because these people already gave their contribution and for sure the person being canceled can't retroactively destroy all their contributions. If they could that'd be a powerful weapon of self defense, some sort of dead man switch against the mob. But they don't, hence society is emboldened to destroy that person because it's the path of least resistence towards getting what it really wants: Separating the contributions from the person who made them, thus making sure that they cannot benefit from them, socially or financially. Society would think long and hard before canceling people if it also meant automatically removing all their contributions. I bet you society would have not canceled Harvey Weinstein if it also meant the complete disappearence of: - Reservoir dogs - Pulp Fiction - Kill Bill - The Aviator - Gangs of New York - Wolf of Wall Street . . . Hypocrisy
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  Society "cancelled" Harvey Weinstein because he raped multiple women, to the point where it was an in-joke in Hollywood. I don't think he's much of a good example except to identify how long it takes for justice to reach someone. Maybe someone like Aziz Ansari is a better example... except he wasn't really cancelled - just hit a bump in his career that he had to acknowledge. (Similarly, Louis CK). I absolutely would be OK with deleting every record of those movies, some of which are my favorites, if there were any point in doing so. The important thing is that a rapist is held accountable!
  - GDC7 5y ago
    > Society "cancelled" Harvey Weinstein because he raped multiple women, to the point where it was an in-joke in Hollywood. I don't think he's much of a good example except to identify how long it takes for justice to reach someone. He caused lifechanging trauma to 10-20 people. That is not excusable. What is not brought up in the assesment of his persona is the amount of entertainment he provided to the world. The aggregate of 40 hours of AAA movies being enjoyed by 3 billion people between theatre, DVD, streaming, TV and piracy. But of course you can't call 3 billion people up to provide their account of what positive impact Wienstin had on their lives. Plus while the trauma caused is substantial, the entertainment provided to the aforementioned 3 billion people is marginal. When you judge somebody you should see the whole picture.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > if it also meant the complete disappearence of: I don't think he had anything to do with the script abd photography of these movies. Maybe too much with casting teenage actresses, but the movies would have been "managed" (rent-seek) by some other production companies, don't worry.
- bigbillheck 5y ago
  > That's exactly what I mean, thank you! You have stressed the whole point! That aside, please answer my other two questions. (And for the rest of your post, maybe the movies we'd have had in the absence of Weinstein would have been better)

edmundsauto 5y ago

Feynman is a weird example - he talks about pickup culture and getting women to sleep with him. He also was a bad husband, spent a lot of time in a strip club drawing "art", and chased after Las Vegas Showgirls. I'm not certain he would have been cancelled - I think that's mostly projection - but it's useful to acknowledge he wasn't exactly a "good guy", despite his contributions to science. (The screed about the Nazis has already been debunked in another comment.)

GDC7 5y ago
> but it's useful to acknowledge he wasn't exactly a "good guy" What exactly constitutes a "good guy" for you? The only possible definition is somebody who wastes away his life, doesn't have fun, works all the times and gifts the discoveries of his endless hours of work to his subordinates so that they can claim as their own. Obviously rejects any compensation above minimum wage for the whole ordeal, so that he could not even have the temptation to spend, because he needs that minimum amount to eat. Not even Jesus Christ would manage to make it into your tier of "good guys". What has the world come to...Feynman being thrown under the bus on HN.
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  To me, it's someone of character who doesn't treat the other sex like objects or puzzles to be solved. Or, if they do and learn from it, doesn't brag about the exploits in their memoirs. There is also the dad test - would you want them dating your daughter?