4 ms·
> You are assuming way too much good faith I'm just going by conversations I've had with people in person and online, and assuming that this is broadly reflect
by smcl 5y ago
> You are assuming way too much good faith
I'm just going by conversations I've had with people in person and online, and assuming that this is broadly reflective of society overall. Don't get me wrong, I am quite sure that there are people who are cancelling people for sadistic pleasure and get a kick out of torturing someone and use hot-button issues to do so. However I cannot imagine this type of person outnumbering those with good-faith concerns at a 10:1 ratio.
- marcus_holmes 5y agoWhich is fair enough, and I'd agree with that. But why do we then assume that everyone who says anything that could be construed as offensive is definitely malicious and needs to be cancelled?
- smcl 5y agoI think it's a little unfair to assume that I would do that
- Nextgrid 5y agoKeep in mind that someone doing it maliciously has every reason to cover it up and pretend it’s legitimate.
- smcl 5y agoWe're probably not going to see eye to eye on this. Honestly it sounds like you've been on the receiving end of this, and I can imagine that being a very frustrating experience so I do sympathise if that is the case. But really the world you're painting is one where you have to walk on eggshells in every conversation because a mob is waiting to pounce if you used the word "retard" as a verb or called someone "Miss" instead of "Ms" or something like that. Perhaps that might happen in the most overly-earnest, try-hard, super-woke group where everyone uses custom, ever-changing neopronouns and you're expected to remember and use every one of them. But I think those sort of people are busy enough with their own internal squabbles to be going out bothering HNers.
- marcus_holmes 5y agoHave you ever posted anything on Twitter? It's exactly what you describe.