5 ms·

I'm sure there's some Republicans on HN. I'm curious why/if you think that, if the public pressuring companies to fire people for some things (what some people

by squigz 1y ago

I'm sure there's some Republicans on HN. I'm curious why/if you think that, if the public pressuring companies to fire people for some things (what some people call "cancelling") is wrong, it's somehow more appropriate for the government to do it? Or is this just a matter of, "well, they did it for years, now it's our turn" for you? (If you don't actually support this party, consider refraining from sharing your opinions of why Republicans support this. And for what it's worth, I don't think the downvotes for those actually sharing their opinions [in a productive way] are deserved, even if I disagree with them.) Y'all really need to read the guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Retinal7467 1y ago
[flagged]
christophilus 1y ago
Most republicans I know despised Kimmel but think the government overstepped. I’m not a Republican, but I am conservative. I think these moves are inexcusable.
gjsman-1000 1y ago
Simple. The Republicans remember when they were cancelled for not wanting to take a vaccination that was just invented months earlier; when they were deplatformed from Twitter constantly; when Reddit rejoiced at the death of one of their heroes; when "right wing violence is more common" became a meme as Minneapolis was literally burning. They watched a kid who they believed had a legitimate self-defense case get thrown the book in Wisconsin by a prosecutor called out by even the judge for brazen unfairness; with unprecedented levels of online hate rather than openness to discussion. They watched CNN accuse right wingers of exaggerating "mostly peaceful" protests with a car literally burning in the background. They stopped caring about your feelings, because you didn't care about theirs.
- Jtsummers 1y ago
  > They stopped caring about your feelings, because you didn't care about theirs. Free speech is not about feelings. It's a principle, one enshrined in the US Constitution. If you don't believe in free speech, just say it. Say you don't want free speech, free assembly, free religion, and the free press. Don't cry about hurt feelings, though. That's what children do.
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    They stood for free speech; but judging by the downvotes here, the left didn't care about their free speech. If it did, my post above wouldn't be at -4, while the inflammatory answer above is still in the black. The left instead rationalized it under "free speech is not freedom from consequences", called them Nazis, fascists, bigots, homophobes, misogynists, you'd need a thesaurus. Every slur in the thesaurus, they used. When your opponent plays dirty, actively seeks to get you fired from your job, and your figureheads get killed (Kirk) or nearly killed (Trump), why uphold the rules? EDIT: > Admit that your position is an unprincipled one and based on feelings rather than thought. Admit that the right has realized that neither side gives a damn about principles; but the left has no right to claim to be principled after 2020.
    - squigz 1y ago
      I don't know though, maybe going from downvotes to making assumptions about something like 50m people is a bit of a stretch? And for what it's worth, I upvoted it, and I would certainly fall under "the left"
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - squigz 1y ago
      > while the inflammatory answer above is still in the black. Which answer are you referring to?
    - etchalon 1y ago
      This basically sums it up. The right was upset that free speech worked both ways. They are now enforcing that grievance with government power.
jcranmer 1y ago
There are actually quite a few Republicans, such as Karl Rove, who are irate at the current administration for its attacks on free speech. But broadly speaking, and this truly transcends partisan divisions, there are very many people whose commitment to free speech only extends insofar as they like the speech being protected. It is actually quite rare to find somebody who will advocate "I think the speech you are saying is reprehensible, but I will stake my life on defending the right for you to say it."
bad_haircut72 1y ago
All attempts to justify it logically are in vain, deep down lots of people just want to smash the "others" - the lies are like a depth-first search for the shortest path to finding a point where they can finally just drop all pretense.
phkahler 1y ago
I don't think Republicans characterize it that way. I find myself right leaning, and while I like most of Trumps agenda, I often disagree with his tactics. I increasingly have to fact check stuff like this to see if he crossed a line. The problem is there's too much BS, summarizing, and mischaracterising going on. Direct quotes (sometimes requiring context) are needed to get to the bottom of things. It's exhausting. I will say, right or wrong the left brought this on - it is a response to their bad behavior.
- monkey_monkey 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - monkey_monkey 1y ago
      [flagged]
    - thrownawayohman 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - gjsman-1000 1y ago
        [flagged]
        thrownawayohman 1y ago
        Why is this site full of weirdos man
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      Their comment was not Christophobic. Please don't abuse religious sentiments and sensibilities to shut down discussions you disagree with.
y-curious 1y ago
I think you should understand that a lot of R's vote along party lines and just felt that Trump would be the lesser of two evils. I would rephrase your question to ask for people that support this specific action, as opposed to membership in the party. I am a Republican, not necessarily thrilled with how things are going, and I completely oppose forcing Kimmel out of a job for this. It is not only unconstitutional in my opinion, but also extremely petty.
- giardini 1y ago
  I also am Republican and believe in free speech but I believe it was OK to fire Kimmel b/c he's an employee who serves at the whim of his employer. It isn't a free speech issue b/c the government didn't fire him. Nor do I think the government had much to do with Kimmel's firing. I believe Kimmel displayed extremely poor taste in his choice of topics and wording, enough for any reasonable business to fire his ass. Maybe he can come back in a year.
zahlman 1y ago
Not a Republican, or even an American, but I do have opinions about this (and I have heard from Republicans about it). Basically, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45305810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45305810 has the right of it, for the most part. But also: in my view, this isn't exactly "the government" doing it. It comes across that the major ABC affiliates already didn't like the show and have been looking for an excuse to get rid of Kimmel for a while. His show has been fading into irrelevance; if you exclude the videos with "Trump" in the title, the Youtube channel has been doing terribly of late relative to the subscriber count (over 20M). And even the Trump videos look lackluster next to the consistently popular documentaries on, say, Veritasium (which puts out science documentaries and has a similar subscriber count). At any rate, "pressure" like this isn't a 1A violation as far as I can tell; no law is being made by Congress. And also, it does matter what the cause of action is. An allegation that your political opponents are trying to dodge responsibility for a serious crime committed by one of their own, is pretty heavy. Maybe you don't think that's worse than, say, insulting someone in a bigoted way; but the Republicans I've heard from seem to consider that the latter standard isn't applied consistently anyway. Which is to say: if they're getting called "Nazis" and "fascists" and there's no penalty for that, it seems like that ought to establish a standard whereby other insults of comparable severity are fair game. One thing I've heard many times in right-wing political discourse, though I'm not sure of the exact phrasing, is "my rules applied fairly > your rules applied fairly > your rules as you apply them". > I don't think the downvotes for those actually sharing their opinions [in a productive way] are deserved In my experience, the arguments very often come from a place of hurt and a genuine sense of being mistreated. It's hard for them to end up being shared very productively.

by squigz 1y ago

Retinal7467 1y ago

[flagged]

christophilus 1y ago

Most republicans I know despised Kimmel but think the government overstepped. I’m not a Republican, but I am conservative. I think these moves are inexcusable.

gjsman-1000 1y ago

Simple. The Republicans remember when they were cancelled for not wanting to take a vaccination that was just invented months earlier; when they were deplatformed from Twitter constantly; when Reddit rejoiced at the death of one of their heroes; when "right wing violence is more common" became a meme as Minneapolis was literally burning. They watched a kid who they believed had a legitimate self-defense case get thrown the book in Wisconsin by a prosecutor called out by even the judge for brazen unfairness; with unprecedented levels of online hate rather than openness to discussion. They watched CNN accuse right wingers of exaggerating "mostly peaceful" protests with a car literally burning in the background. They stopped caring about your feelings, because you didn't care about theirs.

Jtsummers 1y ago
> They stopped caring about your feelings, because you didn't care about theirs. Free speech is not about feelings. It's a principle, one enshrined in the US Constitution. If you don't believe in free speech, just say it. Say you don't want free speech, free assembly, free religion, and the free press. Don't cry about hurt feelings, though. That's what children do.
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  They stood for free speech; but judging by the downvotes here, the left didn't care about their free speech. If it did, my post above wouldn't be at -4, while the inflammatory answer above is still in the black. The left instead rationalized it under "free speech is not freedom from consequences", called them Nazis, fascists, bigots, homophobes, misogynists, you'd need a thesaurus. Every slur in the thesaurus, they used. When your opponent plays dirty, actively seeks to get you fired from your job, and your figureheads get killed (Kirk) or nearly killed (Trump), why uphold the rules? EDIT: > Admit that your position is an unprincipled one and based on feelings rather than thought. Admit that the right has realized that neither side gives a damn about principles; but the left has no right to claim to be principled after 2020.
  - squigz 1y ago
    I don't know though, maybe going from downvotes to making assumptions about something like 50m people is a bit of a stretch? And for what it's worth, I upvoted it, and I would certainly fall under "the left"
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - squigz 1y ago
    > while the inflammatory answer above is still in the black. Which answer are you referring to?
  - etchalon 1y ago
    This basically sums it up. The right was upset that free speech worked both ways. They are now enforcing that grievance with government power.

jcranmer 1y ago

There are actually quite a few Republicans, such as Karl Rove, who are irate at the current administration for its attacks on free speech. But broadly speaking, and this truly transcends partisan divisions, there are very many people whose commitment to free speech only extends insofar as they like the speech being protected. It is actually quite rare to find somebody who will advocate "I think the speech you are saying is reprehensible, but I will stake my life on defending the right for you to say it."

bad_haircut72 1y ago

All attempts to justify it logically are in vain, deep down lots of people just want to smash the "others" - the lies are like a depth-first search for the shortest path to finding a point where they can finally just drop all pretense.

phkahler 1y ago

I don't think Republicans characterize it that way. I find myself right leaning, and while I like most of Trumps agenda, I often disagree with his tactics. I increasingly have to fact check stuff like this to see if he crossed a line. The problem is there's too much BS, summarizing, and mischaracterising going on. Direct quotes (sometimes requiring context) are needed to get to the bottom of things. It's exhausting. I will say, right or wrong the left brought this on - it is a response to their bad behavior.

monkey_monkey 1y ago
[flagged]
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - monkey_monkey 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - thrownawayohman 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - gjsman-1000 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - thrownawayohman 1y ago
        Why is this site full of weirdos man
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    Their comment was not Christophobic. Please don't abuse religious sentiments and sensibilities to shut down discussions you disagree with.

y-curious 1y ago

I think you should understand that a lot of R's vote along party lines and just felt that Trump would be the lesser of two evils. I would rephrase your question to ask for people that support this specific action, as opposed to membership in the party. I am a Republican, not necessarily thrilled with how things are going, and I completely oppose forcing Kimmel out of a job for this. It is not only unconstitutional in my opinion, but also extremely petty.

giardini 1y ago
I also am Republican and believe in free speech but I believe it was OK to fire Kimmel b/c he's an employee who serves at the whim of his employer. It isn't a free speech issue b/c the government didn't fire him. Nor do I think the government had much to do with Kimmel's firing. I believe Kimmel displayed extremely poor taste in his choice of topics and wording, enough for any reasonable business to fire his ass. Maybe he can come back in a year.

zahlman 1y ago

Not a Republican, or even an American, but I do have opinions about this (and I have heard from Republicans about it). Basically, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45305810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45305810 has the right of it, for the most part. But also: in my view, this isn't exactly "the government" doing it. It comes across that the major ABC affiliates already didn't like the show and have been looking for an excuse to get rid of Kimmel for a while. His show has been fading into irrelevance; if you exclude the videos with "Trump" in the title, the Youtube channel has been doing terribly of late relative to the subscriber count (over 20M). And even the Trump videos look lackluster next to the consistently popular documentaries on, say, Veritasium (which puts out science documentaries and has a similar subscriber count). At any rate, "pressure" like this isn't a 1A violation as far as I can tell; no law is being made by Congress. And also, it does matter what the cause of action is. An allegation that your political opponents are trying to dodge responsibility for a serious crime committed by one of their own, is pretty heavy. Maybe you don't think that's worse than, say, insulting someone in a bigoted way; but the Republicans I've heard from seem to consider that the latter standard isn't applied consistently anyway. Which is to say: if they're getting called "Nazis" and "fascists" and there's no penalty for that, it seems like that ought to establish a standard whereby other insults of comparable severity are fair game. One thing I've heard many times in right-wing political discourse, though I'm not sure of the exact phrasing, is "my rules applied fairly > your rules applied fairly > your rules as you apply them". > I don't think the downvotes for those actually sharing their opinions [in a productive way] are deserved In my experience, the arguments very often come from a place of hurt and a genuine sense of being mistreated. It's hard for them to end up being shared very productively.