3 ms·

What I hear you saying is that you don’t understand the situation the author of the article described, don’t have any experience with how powerful social forces

• lapcat 4y ago
  > What I hear you saying is that You heard wrong, but I've lost all interest in continuing this "conversation", which seems to be going nowhere, amounts to nothing but talking past each other, and is quite unpleasant, not enjoyable or informative at all. At this point I do regret my replying to you in the first place (and also your replying to me in the first place). I did actually flag your first reply as violating the HN guidelines, but I chose to reply anyway. That was a mistake (the replying, not the flagging).
  • dahart 4y ago
    I’d agree I’ve been a tad aggressive with the debate style and went over the line a little. I’m sincerely sorry that my words upset you. My intent was to draw out your core argument, not to get our conversation cancelled with a flag. :P I also feel like this conversation wasn’t progressing, and I do take some responsibility for that, maybe I deserved the flag. What I was trying to get to is why you’re reacting to the term “cancel culture” with consistent disbelief. It feels like there’s probably some core feeling or belief or assumption here that is driving your reaction to the article and to the idea of cancellation, and I’m curious what it is. You don’t seem to like the words, even though along the way you’ve described exactly what it is: online words going viral causing groups of people to enact painful consequences on someone. To be fair, your top comment that started this thread violates multiple HN guidelines wrt to the article, and I (along with others) was trying to see if you’d reflect on that and explain it, and hear your point of view and understand your reasoning, by arguing with it. I didn’t flag it though. It wasn’t egregious, and I realize you’re making a meta comment and may not be thinking specifically about how it comes off next to the article, so I replied instead. In effect, you responded to a personal account of someone’s problem with what comes off as a tone deaf claim that the problem doesn’t exist, in multiple ways, and have since maintained and insisted you’re right without addressing any counter argument. Your stance so far as a whole is failing to respond to the strongest plausible interpretation. Words do have power, which goes without saying, it’s not even debatable. I’m just curious why you’re choosing to use the argument repeatedly that tweets are mere words to suggest that cancel culture somehow isn’t a real or serious phenomenon.
    • lapcat 4y ago
      > I’d agree I’ve been a tad aggressive with the debate style and went over the line a little. I’m sincerely sorry that my words upset you. Thank you! I appreciate the apology. > In effect, you responded to a personal account of someone’s problem with what comes off as a tone deaf claim that the problem doesn’t exist I don't agree with that characterization. I've never been in denial that some people have lost their jobs and other professional opportunities in this way. For example, I said, "Cowardly people in power would rather throw their colleagues under the bus than experience any bad PR whatsoever." That's an affirmation rather than a denial of cancellation. (One of the fastest ways to get cancelled in the United States, ironically, is to criticize the government of Israel.) The point of my original comment was to correctly attribute blame for the occurrence. I understand that Twitter loudly calls for some people's heads, but there's no legal mandate to act on the basis of that. Tweets are no substitute for thoughtfulness and due process. Which is why I said: > they could easily fight it if they had the backing of their own employer, for example, who would be the very organization that's officially doing the "canceling". My goal was to put the focus on the people in power, the ones making the final decisions. The ones who can say "You're fired." Ultimately, it doesn't matter if thousands of people call for you to be fired, as long as none of those thousands is your boss. To the extent that leaders cave to Twitter pressure, those leaders empower and incentivize "cancel culture". The culture could not thrive unless the leaders abide by it. To be fair, Twitter can raise legitimate complaints. Historically, the powerless have been routinely subject to cancellation. Black people, women, et al. Twitter has given formerly powerless people a public voice they never had before, which can be a force for good. And some of the targets of Twitter scorn truly deserve it. But again, Twitter is not decisive on the matter. You mentioned Harvey Weinstein: he was convicted of crimes by a jury in a court of law, where evidence and testimony was presented. That's why he's in jail. The court of public opinion doesn't have that power. Moreover, Twitter is the ultimate in slacktivism. It takes almost no effort at all to tweet, and you don't even have to leave the couch. So in general, Twitter "mobs" ought to have less weight than, say, in-person protests. Of course, protests can also be ignored by those in power, but at least a protest shows a significant amount of effort and determination in support of a cause, vastly more than a tweet. In the abstract, I'm personally ambivalent about "cancellation". I think that some people have been treated wrongly, but I also think that other people deserve to be removed from positions of power. Which is why I said: > I should note that I'm expressing no particular opinion about whether a particular person should or shouldn't lose a particular job or financial benefit.