6 ms·

That comment is actually a good politically-neutral illustration of a major force underpinning today's political hyper-polarization: people simply can't handle

by api 4y ago

That comment is actually a good politically-neutral illustration of a major force underpinning today's political hyper-polarization: people simply can't handle the mere existence of something they don't like and will respond by shunning entire bodies of work or attacking people unnecessarily. This is definitely new as in the last 10-15 years. In the past more people seemed able to just disregard or shrug at things they didn't approve of. We've had eras of profound intolerance before. I think this one might be unique in that it seems universal across the entire political and social spectrum.

Joker_vD 4y ago
Reminds me of [0]. The original poster's account is deleted, but it was "@Christian-Schiffer" — yes, the person who complained about presence of a Christmas-related icon in VS Code had name "Christian". And the VS Code team responded immediately, the icon was removed what, one or two days after the complaint, in an urgently published patch. [0] https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/87268 https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/87268
thebooktocome 4y ago
Have you heard of the Vatican’s Index Librorum Prohibitorum? This isn’t exactly a new phenomenon.
pjmlp 4y ago
Having been raised out of a dictorship I don't have any patience for the cancelation culture that is now so trendy. If those people would get visits from PIDE/DGS, or similar agencies, they would see how real cancelation actually works in practice.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  I agree. I think that people who haven't been raised in such a society don't realize how chilling it is to be afraid to say something wrong and constantly be aware that you could be punished for your words. It makes you unable to even think clearly, lest a slip-of-tongue gets you sent to jail. It's no way to live.
  - doublepg23 4y ago
    Is this a “the first as tragedy, then as farce” type of deal? The same authoritarian impulse but over such small potatoes.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      > Is this a “the first as tragedy, then as farce” type of deal? Definitely. First, cancel culture emerged as a response to genuine concerns about social justice and equity, particularly with regards to marginalized communities. Cancel culture initially sought to hold people accountable for their harmful actions and words, and to create a more inclusive and just society. However, over time, cancel culture has increasingly become a farcical parody of its original intentions - it has devolved into a tool for online mobs to attack individuals for minor or unintentional offenses, resulting in a culture of fear and self-censorship. Cancel culture has also been weaponized by some to silence dissenting opinions or to settle personal scores, rather than to advance social justice. See: https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ for a recent example.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  It's very hard to believe you. Comparing life under a dictatorship with somebody asking to change an icon without having any power to impose their will.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Here is the thing I don't care one second, beyond this comment.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    Do they not? The icon has changed, so they obviously have the power. Maybe not by force, but being afraid of being cancelled can be just as powerful.
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      "cancelled" by xiphias2 deleting the repository on github using magic? HN can't even tell the difference with asking and imposing?
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        There doesn't have to be a direct tangible threat for people to act on impulses they were taught through a direct tangible threat (see: learned helplessness [0]). That's the way reinforcement learning works on humans, otherwise there would be no concept of ethics - ethics itself is based on generalizing a basic set of rules learned through punishment and reward. The power is there, because it had an effect on reality, whether you admit it or not. The person has indeed asked, but consider what would happen if the person asked for the whole repository to be deleted, for example, because they personally didn't like the RISC-V architecture: the request would probably not be fulfilled. But the request for removing the cigarette emoji was followed - why? What's the difference between the two? My theory is that the ratio between the learned "threat" and required effort to avoid the "threat" was low enough to warrant the action. Assuming the effort is a constant (editing a single text file and pushing it to GitHub == removing the repository; ~same amount of clicks), that means that the learned "threat" was high enough to warrant the deletion. The threat comes from the cancel culture that glorifies anyone that presents themselves (or others) as victims. In case of the second - hypothetical - request, there is no such threat, so the request itself would be rendered bizarre and selfish. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
xiphias2 4y ago
This may be new in the last 10-15 years, but let's not forget why that icon appeared there: because of the huge marketing budget spend created by tobacco companies to make smoking look cool instead of something that kills millions of people slowly.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - kelnos 4y ago
    That's... not what the parent poster said.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      Oh, I know. The OP put an icon of cigarette because big evil corporations brainwashed him into liking cigarettes, not because he wanted to. But he removed it because he wanted to, not because big evil mobs brainwashed him into fearing cancellation. That's totally how it happened.
- freedomben 4y ago
  I'm not a smoker and don't want smoking anywhere near me, but I don't think it's fair to assume it's just advertising. Smoking is enjoyable for many people and makes them feel good. It's also been in use as far as history records, long before advertising budgets and big tobacco.
KerrAvon 4y ago
It's not new, and it's not "profound intolerance", jfc. Cigarette advertising has been banned on American television since at least the 1980's, and it's generally been taboo to depict unnecessary cigarette usage in TV shows and movies for at least as long. This has actually been extraordinarily effective as part of a multifaceted effort to reduce cigarette usage and the resulting diseases. And yes, people have been complaining about it on civil libertarian grounds at least as long. Which is fair enough. But if you want to see some actual __intolerance__, you might look at what's happening in Florida.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > Cigarette advertising has been banned on American television since at least the 1980's, and it's generally been taboo to depict unnecessary cigarette usage in TV shows and movies for at least as long Fight Club was recorded in 1999, and it explicitly shows a scene of Tyler Durden smoking a cigarette, so I doubt your claim has any substance to it. > But if you want to see some actual __intolerance__, you might look at what's happening in Florida. If you want to actually enlighten anyone, you might want to provide more information than "what's happening in Florida". There's a lot of things happening in Florida in any given moment, so I have no way of knowing what you're referring to.
goodpoint 4y ago
> people simply can't handle the mere existence of something Unlike the previous say 2000 years of history, where societies around the world were very tolerant, especially of different religions, cultures, lifestyles etc /s No? Then please don't be silly. xiphias2's request might be strange and even mildly annoying but modern society does NOT have a problem of anti-smoker extremists organizing hangings in the town's square.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > modern society does NOT have a problem of anti-smoker extremists organizing hangings in the town's square. You are missing the point. The xiphias2's request was not anti-smoking in any way (I doubt they even volunteer in any anti-smoking rallies in their own community) - it was purely masturbatory, using victimhood as a cover for forcing their own will upon a repository that they didn't even have to look at, and which definitely didn't celebrate smoking in any way a reasonable person would recognize. Victimhood is not supposed to provide you with power (at least not without proper verification), otherwise it provides a perverse incentive [0] for anyone to pretend they're victims in order to gain influence over things that they otherwise wouldn't have. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    xiphias2 asking to remove a cigarette icon, nothing more and nothing less. Without any power whatsoever to force the repository owner. There is no Icon Police around. > anyone to pretend they're victims in order to gain influence over things that they otherwise wouldn't have You are implying that people have an undue influence over society, which includes you AKA you are painting yourself as the victim of xiphias2 alleged victimhood. Again, there is no Icon Police around, don't be scared.

by api 4y ago

Joker_vD 4y ago

Reminds me of [0]. The original poster's account is deleted, but it was "@Christian-Schiffer" — yes, the person who complained about presence of a Christmas-related icon in VS Code had name "Christian". And the VS Code team responded immediately, the icon was removed what, one or two days after the complaint, in an urgently published patch. [0] https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/87268 https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/87268

thebooktocome 4y ago

Have you heard of the Vatican’s Index Librorum Prohibitorum? This isn’t exactly a new phenomenon.

pjmlp 4y ago

Having been raised out of a dictorship I don't have any patience for the cancelation culture that is now so trendy. If those people would get visits from PIDE/DGS, or similar agencies, they would see how real cancelation actually works in practice.

bheadmaster 4y ago
I agree. I think that people who haven't been raised in such a society don't realize how chilling it is to be afraid to say something wrong and constantly be aware that you could be punished for your words. It makes you unable to even think clearly, lest a slip-of-tongue gets you sent to jail. It's no way to live.
- doublepg23 4y ago
  Is this a “the first as tragedy, then as farce” type of deal? The same authoritarian impulse but over such small potatoes.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    > Is this a “the first as tragedy, then as farce” type of deal? Definitely. First, cancel culture emerged as a response to genuine concerns about social justice and equity, particularly with regards to marginalized communities. Cancel culture initially sought to hold people accountable for their harmful actions and words, and to create a more inclusive and just society. However, over time, cancel culture has increasingly become a farcical parody of its original intentions - it has devolved into a tool for online mobs to attack individuals for minor or unintentional offenses, resulting in a culture of fear and self-censorship. Cancel culture has also been weaponized by some to silence dissenting opinions or to settle personal scores, rather than to advance social justice. See: https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ for a recent example.
goodpoint 4y ago
It's very hard to believe you. Comparing life under a dictatorship with somebody asking to change an icon without having any power to impose their will.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Here is the thing I don't care one second, beyond this comment.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  Do they not? The icon has changed, so they obviously have the power. Maybe not by force, but being afraid of being cancelled can be just as powerful.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    "cancelled" by xiphias2 deleting the repository on github using magic? HN can't even tell the difference with asking and imposing?
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      There doesn't have to be a direct tangible threat for people to act on impulses they were taught through a direct tangible threat (see: learned helplessness [0]). That's the way reinforcement learning works on humans, otherwise there would be no concept of ethics - ethics itself is based on generalizing a basic set of rules learned through punishment and reward. The power is there, because it had an effect on reality, whether you admit it or not. The person has indeed asked, but consider what would happen if the person asked for the whole repository to be deleted, for example, because they personally didn't like the RISC-V architecture: the request would probably not be fulfilled. But the request for removing the cigarette emoji was followed - why? What's the difference between the two? My theory is that the ratio between the learned "threat" and required effort to avoid the "threat" was low enough to warrant the action. Assuming the effort is a constant (editing a single text file and pushing it to GitHub == removing the repository; ~same amount of clicks), that means that the learned "threat" was high enough to warrant the deletion. The threat comes from the cancel culture that glorifies anyone that presents themselves (or others) as victims. In case of the second - hypothetical - request, there is no such threat, so the request itself would be rendered bizarre and selfish. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

xiphias2 4y ago

This may be new in the last 10-15 years, but let's not forget why that icon appeared there: because of the huge marketing budget spend created by tobacco companies to make smoking look cool instead of something that kills millions of people slowly.

bheadmaster 4y ago
[flagged]
- kelnos 4y ago
  That's... not what the parent poster said.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    Oh, I know. The OP put an icon of cigarette because big evil corporations brainwashed him into liking cigarettes, not because he wanted to. But he removed it because he wanted to, not because big evil mobs brainwashed him into fearing cancellation. That's totally how it happened.
freedomben 4y ago
I'm not a smoker and don't want smoking anywhere near me, but I don't think it's fair to assume it's just advertising. Smoking is enjoyable for many people and makes them feel good. It's also been in use as far as history records, long before advertising budgets and big tobacco.

KerrAvon 4y ago

It's not new, and it's not "profound intolerance", jfc. Cigarette advertising has been banned on American television since at least the 1980's, and it's generally been taboo to depict unnecessary cigarette usage in TV shows and movies for at least as long. This has actually been extraordinarily effective as part of a multifaceted effort to reduce cigarette usage and the resulting diseases. And yes, people have been complaining about it on civil libertarian grounds at least as long. Which is fair enough. But if you want to see some actual __intolerance__, you might look at what's happening in Florida.

bheadmaster 4y ago
> Cigarette advertising has been banned on American television since at least the 1980's, and it's generally been taboo to depict unnecessary cigarette usage in TV shows and movies for at least as long Fight Club was recorded in 1999, and it explicitly shows a scene of Tyler Durden smoking a cigarette, so I doubt your claim has any substance to it. > But if you want to see some actual __intolerance__, you might look at what's happening in Florida. If you want to actually enlighten anyone, you might want to provide more information than "what's happening in Florida". There's a lot of things happening in Florida in any given moment, so I have no way of knowing what you're referring to.

goodpoint 4y ago

> people simply can't handle the mere existence of something Unlike the previous say 2000 years of history, where societies around the world were very tolerant, especially of different religions, cultures, lifestyles etc /s No? Then please don't be silly. xiphias2's request might be strange and even mildly annoying but modern society does NOT have a problem of anti-smoker extremists organizing hangings in the town's square.

bheadmaster 4y ago
> modern society does NOT have a problem of anti-smoker extremists organizing hangings in the town's square. You are missing the point. The xiphias2's request was not anti-smoking in any way (I doubt they even volunteer in any anti-smoking rallies in their own community) - it was purely masturbatory, using victimhood as a cover for forcing their own will upon a repository that they didn't even have to look at, and which definitely didn't celebrate smoking in any way a reasonable person would recognize. Victimhood is not supposed to provide you with power (at least not without proper verification), otherwise it provides a perverse incentive [0] for anyone to pretend they're victims in order to gain influence over things that they otherwise wouldn't have. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
- goodpoint 4y ago
  xiphias2 asking to remove a cigarette icon, nothing more and nothing less. Without any power whatsoever to force the repository owner. There is no Icon Police around. > anyone to pretend they're victims in order to gain influence over things that they otherwise wouldn't have You are implying that people have an undue influence over society, which includes you AKA you are painting yourself as the victim of xiphias2 alleged victimhood. Again, there is no Icon Police around, don't be scared.