3 ms·

Not the firings, but the effort to pressure employers. And it's really not in doubt; the coordination is real and public. I have seen many conservative pundits

Not the firings, but the effort to pressure employers. And it's really not in doubt; the coordination is real and public. I have seen many conservative pundits be very open about it (and preemptively engage with the "isn't this the same cancel culture you used to hate" argument). My thoughts on the legitimacy of this, from another submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45234875 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45234875

pmdulaney 1y ago
[flagged]
- achileas 1y ago
  Except there weren't really any mass harassment, rape and death threat, and firing campaigns being coordinated against ordinary people for not sufficiently mourning someone. Most of the "cancel culture" stuff was overblown nonsense, the few real events were against massive public figures credibly accused of heinous things like Weinstein. Pretending this is in any way equivalent betrays either an intense naivete or a supporter of this pre-pogrom behavior.
  - TrnsltLife 1y ago
    What about the stuff around George Floyd. Weren't people accosted and forced to kneel down and repent? e.g. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8664345/Aggressive-crowd-BLM-protesters-accost-white-diners-outside-DC-restaurants.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8664345/Aggressive-... https://twitter.com/i/status/1267283980514201610 https://twitter.com/i/status/1267283980514201610 https://twitter.com/i/status/1269043437275435016 https://twitter.com/i/status/1269043437275435016 Etc. Maybe some of them knelt voluntarily. But what would have happened if they hadn't. To me at the time there seemed to be a lot of social pressure to "kneel" and accept the narrative and the will of the mob.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    I fear I've been misunderstood, or at least over-interpreted. > mass harassment, rape and death threat From what I've seen (and notwithstanding the claims in TFA, which are unsupported by evidence other than allegations), these things aren't happening this time either, and the voices organizing the firing campaigns are against them. In particular, Ms. Gilmore's story cannot be reconciled with the evidence available to me. I have in some places seen dehumanizing rhetoric. This is of course still not okay, but it clearly comes from a place of genuine hurt. Also, my standard objection here: telling people that you hope a terrible thing happens to them is not acceptable, but it is also objectively not a "threat", and it bothers me when it's falsely characterized that way. > for not sufficiently mourning someone This is not a reasonable representation of the cause of action. We're talking about people who outright celebrate Kirk's death or insinuate that it was somehow deserved. > Most of the "cancel culture" stuff was overblown nonsense, the few real events were against massive public figures credibly accused of heinous things like Weinstein. Strongly disagree. Matt Rose, James Damore, the list goes on and on (but I've left behind the days when I kept track in any serious way). > Pretending this is in any way equivalent betrays I feel much the same about people who equate a guy getting killed for his political beliefs with people losing their job for expressing ideology that can reasonably be considered incompatible with doing the job. (I'm sure there are people outside the professions I mentioned in the other thread getting targeted. As I already said, I oppose that.)
- jslezak 1y ago
  What an appalling comment. You can’t possibly justify what you’re doing so you pretend it’s something “the left” did first. Did the left deport students because they wrote an op-ed article, or went to a protest? Did senior administration officials call for jailing opponents for thought crimes?
  - pmdulaney 1y ago
    You are correct in your assumption that I am a conservative, but I abhor the lunacy of the MAGA right as much as anyone. But the fact remains that the roots of this behavior are in men like Foucault and Marcuse, who were squarely on the left.
    - mindslight 1y ago
      So just to be clear - by "abhor the lunacy of the MAGA right" you mean you did not vote for the current crop societal arsonists and otherwise generally denounce them, right? I ask because there is a common disingenuous pattern of people claiming to distance themselves from the methods or other things they find distasteful (eg the profligate deficit spending), but ultimately still falling in line with support.
      - pmdulaney 1y ago
        Not disingenuous, I think. I did vote for Trump, and even if I had a crystal ball in November and knew then what I know now, I would still prefer him to Harris. On the other hand, I have been quite vocal in my criticism of him -- but the circle of friends and acquaintances who have heard my criticisms is pretty small.
        mindslight 1y ago
        It's disingenuous because you're bringing up the lunacy as if its one of your primary concerns while invoking the concept of "integrity". But then you're not actually living out that concern, rather assuaging your own ego by imagining that "the left" is still somehow worse in this measure. You don't get to bemoan societal decay when you're directly contributing to that decay.
- dangus 1y ago
  Ah yes, the dangerously effective leftist power-grabbing playbook. This is the playbook with accomplishments like: - Losing two Supreme Court nominations because the opposing party said so, refusing to pack the court in response (also see: next bullet) - Failing to make general legislative progress by having two critical senators in their party refuse to caucus with them, with both eventually leaving the party entirely - Controlling less than half of state legislatures in the whole country, less than half of all state governors - Running unpopular candidates for president 3 times in a row and losing 2/3 easily winnable campaigns over it - Allowing their unpopular presidential candidate to decide to drop out at the last minute rather than convincing him to do it with enough time to do a proper primary and grassroots campaigning - Sitting around for years instead of expediting prosecution of Trump for obvious crimes (e.g., classified documents case, Jan. 9 insurrection case) before he could return to office - Tossing a bucket of quicksand onto voter enthusiasm by splitting the party over the Israel/Gaza conflict and other wedge issues I actually hope the Republican Party adopts the left's "power-grabbing playbook" so that we can go back to having Democrats in control. Who knows, we might even get universal healthcare - last time, a public option was blocked by a single independent congressperson, which is too much power for the power-grabbing leftists to handle!
  - collingreen 1y ago
    Don't feed the trolls
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  Tf are you referring to
lisbbb 1y ago
Be very glad that's all they are doing.
- LocalH 1y ago
  What is that supposed to mean? That's no further away from "violent rhetoric" as the things many critics of Kirk have said recently, and been vilified for saying
  - iszomer 1y ago
    It means the event has had such an impact in which it has already reverberated across the entire globe, where other countries' leaders and people have responded. He's saying to not be surprised when this may potentially affect the already volatile state of the global markets and economies even further or, whatever industries you follow or are in or, policy changes that may (already) be in the pipeline. If I may give a metaphor, in the context of the global trade and economies, countries have been using the "carrot on a stick" approach to negotiations. Trump came and changed the stick to a club. Who knows now whether he'll throw out the carrot altogether and whether others will do the same.

pmdulaney 1y ago

[flagged]

achileas 1y ago
Except there weren't really any mass harassment, rape and death threat, and firing campaigns being coordinated against ordinary people for not sufficiently mourning someone. Most of the "cancel culture" stuff was overblown nonsense, the few real events were against massive public figures credibly accused of heinous things like Weinstein. Pretending this is in any way equivalent betrays either an intense naivete or a supporter of this pre-pogrom behavior.
- TrnsltLife 1y ago
  What about the stuff around George Floyd. Weren't people accosted and forced to kneel down and repent? e.g. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8664345/Aggressive-crowd-BLM-protesters-accost-white-diners-outside-DC-restaurants.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8664345/Aggressive-... https://twitter.com/i/status/1267283980514201610 https://twitter.com/i/status/1267283980514201610 https://twitter.com/i/status/1269043437275435016 https://twitter.com/i/status/1269043437275435016 Etc. Maybe some of them knelt voluntarily. But what would have happened if they hadn't. To me at the time there seemed to be a lot of social pressure to "kneel" and accept the narrative and the will of the mob.
- zahlman 1y ago
  I fear I've been misunderstood, or at least over-interpreted. > mass harassment, rape and death threat From what I've seen (and notwithstanding the claims in TFA, which are unsupported by evidence other than allegations), these things aren't happening this time either, and the voices organizing the firing campaigns are against them. In particular, Ms. Gilmore's story cannot be reconciled with the evidence available to me. I have in some places seen dehumanizing rhetoric. This is of course still not okay, but it clearly comes from a place of genuine hurt. Also, my standard objection here: telling people that you hope a terrible thing happens to them is not acceptable, but it is also objectively not a "threat", and it bothers me when it's falsely characterized that way. > for not sufficiently mourning someone This is not a reasonable representation of the cause of action. We're talking about people who outright celebrate Kirk's death or insinuate that it was somehow deserved. > Most of the "cancel culture" stuff was overblown nonsense, the few real events were against massive public figures credibly accused of heinous things like Weinstein. Strongly disagree. Matt Rose, James Damore, the list goes on and on (but I've left behind the days when I kept track in any serious way). > Pretending this is in any way equivalent betrays I feel much the same about people who equate a guy getting killed for his political beliefs with people losing their job for expressing ideology that can reasonably be considered incompatible with doing the job. (I'm sure there are people outside the professions I mentioned in the other thread getting targeted. As I already said, I oppose that.)
jslezak 1y ago
What an appalling comment. You can’t possibly justify what you’re doing so you pretend it’s something “the left” did first. Did the left deport students because they wrote an op-ed article, or went to a protest? Did senior administration officials call for jailing opponents for thought crimes?
- pmdulaney 1y ago
  You are correct in your assumption that I am a conservative, but I abhor the lunacy of the MAGA right as much as anyone. But the fact remains that the roots of this behavior are in men like Foucault and Marcuse, who were squarely on the left.
  - mindslight 1y ago
    So just to be clear - by "abhor the lunacy of the MAGA right" you mean you did not vote for the current crop societal arsonists and otherwise generally denounce them, right? I ask because there is a common disingenuous pattern of people claiming to distance themselves from the methods or other things they find distasteful (eg the profligate deficit spending), but ultimately still falling in line with support.
    - pmdulaney 1y ago
      Not disingenuous, I think. I did vote for Trump, and even if I had a crystal ball in November and knew then what I know now, I would still prefer him to Harris. On the other hand, I have been quite vocal in my criticism of him -- but the circle of friends and acquaintances who have heard my criticisms is pretty small.
      - mindslight 1y ago
        It's disingenuous because you're bringing up the lunacy as if its one of your primary concerns while invoking the concept of "integrity". But then you're not actually living out that concern, rather assuaging your own ego by imagining that "the left" is still somehow worse in this measure. You don't get to bemoan societal decay when you're directly contributing to that decay.
dangus 1y ago
Ah yes, the dangerously effective leftist power-grabbing playbook. This is the playbook with accomplishments like: - Losing two Supreme Court nominations because the opposing party said so, refusing to pack the court in response (also see: next bullet) - Failing to make general legislative progress by having two critical senators in their party refuse to caucus with them, with both eventually leaving the party entirely - Controlling less than half of state legislatures in the whole country, less than half of all state governors - Running unpopular candidates for president 3 times in a row and losing 2/3 easily winnable campaigns over it - Allowing their unpopular presidential candidate to decide to drop out at the last minute rather than convincing him to do it with enough time to do a proper primary and grassroots campaigning - Sitting around for years instead of expediting prosecution of Trump for obvious crimes (e.g., classified documents case, Jan. 9 insurrection case) before he could return to office - Tossing a bucket of quicksand onto voter enthusiasm by splitting the party over the Israel/Gaza conflict and other wedge issues I actually hope the Republican Party adopts the left's "power-grabbing playbook" so that we can go back to having Democrats in control. Who knows, we might even get universal healthcare - last time, a public option was blocked by a single independent congressperson, which is too much power for the power-grabbing leftists to handle!
- collingreen 1y ago
  Don't feed the trolls
MangoToupe 1y ago
Tf are you referring to

lisbbb 1y ago

Be very glad that's all they are doing.

LocalH 1y ago
What is that supposed to mean? That's no further away from "violent rhetoric" as the things many critics of Kirk have said recently, and been vilified for saying
- iszomer 1y ago
  It means the event has had such an impact in which it has already reverberated across the entire globe, where other countries' leaders and people have responded. He's saying to not be surprised when this may potentially affect the already volatile state of the global markets and economies even further or, whatever industries you follow or are in or, policy changes that may (already) be in the pipeline. If I may give a metaphor, in the context of the global trade and economies, countries have been using the "carrot on a stick" approach to negotiations. Trump came and changed the stick to a club. Who knows now whether he'll throw out the carrot altogether and whether others will do the same.