6 ms·

Note that John O’Sullivan is a zealous conservative commentator of the O'Reilly sort and by spreading this article you are letting him set the narrative, not th

by dmazin 12y ago

Note that John O’Sullivan is a zealous conservative commentator of the O'Reilly sort and by spreading this article you are letting him set the narrative, not the marginalized groups he attacks (which he even lists: "[Muslims], Christians, Gays, feminists, [...], ethnic activists").

jshevek 12y ago
>> Note that John O’Sullivan is a zealous conservative commentator of the O'Reilly sort and by spreading this article you are letting him set the narrative, not the marginalized groups he attacks (which he even lists: "[Muslims], Christians, Gays, feminists, [...], ethnic activists"). Okay! I'll definitely not read this. I don't want to let a hateful person set the narrative. If they set the narrative, they win.
- dmazin 12y ago
  It was definitely dumb of me to say "read." I meant "spread."
  - jshevek 12y ago
    That may have contributed to the downvotes. I don't know/understand HN etiquette, but it seems to me that we 'ought' to accomplish such edits with addenda, rather than replacements, so as not to present a misleading context for earlier responses. For me, 'discouraging reading of A' is radically different from 'discouraging spreading A'.
sgnelson 12y ago
I don't know why this is so downvoted. It's always important to know whence opinions come and any (perceived or otherwise) biases that their authors may have. (And this is literally an opinion piece we're discussing.)
- lotharbot 12y ago
  It's important to know whence opinions come, but the comment doesn't do it well. Saying someone is "a zealous conservative commentator of the O'Reilly sort" doesn't really say anything meaningful or valuable. What does zealous mean in this case? What are the key attributes of O'Reilly that this guy also emulates? In what way does that make him untrustworthy on this particular topic? In what way does that make his comments on this topic actually wrong? Has he been involved in controversies over free speech in the past that would show problems with his position? The answers to those questions could be useful, but the commenter didn't give us any of that; he just makes vague statements about how the guy is "zealous" and "an oppressor" (in a followup comment). To add to that, he references the groups the author mentions and claims they should be setting the narrative because they're "marginalized". Among those "marginalized" groups are American Christians (around 3/4 of the population!), patriots, and foreign despots. It seems he either misunderstood or mischaracterized the list; it's not about groups that are marginalized, but about groups that have tried to silence opposition through the courts and legislatures. The commenter missed the point badly by focusing on the idea of marginalization.
  - ams6110 12y ago
    And on top of all of that, O'Reilly is not a conservative.
vezzy-fnord 12y ago
First time I've seen "foreign despots" listed as a marginalized group.
- dmazin 12y ago
  You're right, it seemed strange to edit his quote, but I figured out a way to do it without putting words in his mouth.
  - vezzy-fnord 12y ago
    You still left in "ethnic activists". I assume white nationalists are included, as well? Identity politics are doomed to anachronism and detriment.
    - dmazin 12y ago
      I think we disagree about what ethnic activists are, I just saw it as people who campaign for recognition as a valid group of humans (e.g. Palestinians).
quonn 12y ago
HN is already fairly liberal (this includes me) and it does not hurt to have a conservative opinion here from time to time.
- gohrt 12y ago
  We can get better conservative opinions than WSJ editorials.
- dmazin 12y ago
  I'm not against conservative opinions! I am saying that it's embarrassing that we are letting the narrative be set by an oppressor (oppressor through zealous journalism) rather than the groups he discuses.
  - unchocked 12y ago
    He only mentions such groups. His discussion is on the right of all of us to say what we please, no matter what any marginalized group, powerful group, majority group, minority group, or kooky fool calling reasoned commenters out personally thinks, feels, or is triggered about it.
tikhonj 12y ago
Wow. This comment is a neat microcosm of what's wrong with modern "progressive" discourse. Let's take a look: • it starts with a personal attack—apparently giving any credence to conservatives is embarrassing? • it completley ignores the underlying principles of individually liberty • in fact, it completely steamrolls individual concerns in favor of abstract social groups • it's unabashedly populist: instead of making a real argument, it's about "not embarrassing ourselves" • it implicitly inserts the speaker as a defender for some nebulous "marginalized" groups, with no real basis Of course, in this case, the marginalized groups are using social and legal pressure to suppress any dissent. Which isn't a product of being marginalized—and can't be justified by it either. But I guess your views are so obviously correct that we shouldn't countenance any disagreement at all. Long on pathos, long on populism and short on substance. And yet it's all too indicative of much of the discussion I hear in Berkeley, at the very least. (Fancy that.) It's also disturbingly unwilling to consider any contrary opinions. Apparently that would be letting someone (other than you, of course!) "set the narrative". The scariest thing is that this is exactly the sort of reasoning used to justify taking away people's rights. And, at least for now, it seems to be working. I can't even tell if you're being entirely serious, or I'm just missing the parody and tearing down a straw man.
- dmazin 12y ago
  Perhaps you would be better off no longer showing up at my house, which is in Berkeley, where I (personally) do not welcome you any longer. You have expressed questionable, unchecked views previously, besides this, e.g. your worrisome views on Julie Ann Horvath's treatment. Sorry I'm ruining your HN by challenging that many of the articles posted here are about marginalized groups, rather than by marginalized groups. Edit: I reread this and note that this is NOT a threat. You would face no aggression coming to my house, I meant that if Berkeley's discussions are too progressive for you, perhaps my house where I live is not your kinda thing.
  - tikhonj 12y ago
    Oh yes, heaven forfend that you ever have to interact with people that you disagree with. Then again, I suppose it is consistent, at the very least.
tzs 12y ago
Christians are a marginalized group?! Also, he did not attack those groups. He accused them of trying to censor disagreeable opinions, which in fact they often do. Why did you "[...]" out "patriots, foreign despots"? By removing that, and leaving only groups you considered to be marginalized, you make it look like he is focusing on marginalized groups rather than focusing on groups that try to censor disagreeable opinions. Furthermore, he explicitly says a couple paragraphs down that conservatives are not "free from sin on this issue", and gives examples of conservative attempts to censor provocative art, further weakening the claim that the article is an attack on marginalized groups.

by dmazin 12y ago

jshevek 12y ago

>> Note that John O’Sullivan is a zealous conservative commentator of the O'Reilly sort and by spreading this article you are letting him set the narrative, not the marginalized groups he attacks (which he even lists: "[Muslims], Christians, Gays, feminists, [...], ethnic activists"). Okay! I'll definitely not read this. I don't want to let a hateful person set the narrative. If they set the narrative, they win.

dmazin 12y ago
It was definitely dumb of me to say "read." I meant "spread."
- jshevek 12y ago
  That may have contributed to the downvotes. I don't know/understand HN etiquette, but it seems to me that we 'ought' to accomplish such edits with addenda, rather than replacements, so as not to present a misleading context for earlier responses. For me, 'discouraging reading of A' is radically different from 'discouraging spreading A'.

sgnelson 12y ago

I don't know why this is so downvoted. It's always important to know whence opinions come and any (perceived or otherwise) biases that their authors may have. (And this is literally an opinion piece we're discussing.)

lotharbot 12y ago
It's important to know whence opinions come, but the comment doesn't do it well. Saying someone is "a zealous conservative commentator of the O'Reilly sort" doesn't really say anything meaningful or valuable. What does zealous mean in this case? What are the key attributes of O'Reilly that this guy also emulates? In what way does that make him untrustworthy on this particular topic? In what way does that make his comments on this topic actually wrong? Has he been involved in controversies over free speech in the past that would show problems with his position? The answers to those questions could be useful, but the commenter didn't give us any of that; he just makes vague statements about how the guy is "zealous" and "an oppressor" (in a followup comment). To add to that, he references the groups the author mentions and claims they should be setting the narrative because they're "marginalized". Among those "marginalized" groups are American Christians (around 3/4 of the population!), patriots, and foreign despots. It seems he either misunderstood or mischaracterized the list; it's not about groups that are marginalized, but about groups that have tried to silence opposition through the courts and legislatures. The commenter missed the point badly by focusing on the idea of marginalization.
- ams6110 12y ago
  And on top of all of that, O'Reilly is not a conservative.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago

First time I've seen "foreign despots" listed as a marginalized group.

dmazin 12y ago
You're right, it seemed strange to edit his quote, but I figured out a way to do it without putting words in his mouth.
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  You still left in "ethnic activists". I assume white nationalists are included, as well? Identity politics are doomed to anachronism and detriment.
  - dmazin 12y ago
    I think we disagree about what ethnic activists are, I just saw it as people who campaign for recognition as a valid group of humans (e.g. Palestinians).

quonn 12y ago

HN is already fairly liberal (this includes me) and it does not hurt to have a conservative opinion here from time to time.

gohrt 12y ago
We can get better conservative opinions than WSJ editorials.
dmazin 12y ago
I'm not against conservative opinions! I am saying that it's embarrassing that we are letting the narrative be set by an oppressor (oppressor through zealous journalism) rather than the groups he discuses.
- unchocked 12y ago
  He only mentions such groups. His discussion is on the right of all of us to say what we please, no matter what any marginalized group, powerful group, majority group, minority group, or kooky fool calling reasoned commenters out personally thinks, feels, or is triggered about it.

tikhonj 12y ago

Wow. This comment is a neat microcosm of what's wrong with modern "progressive" discourse. Let's take a look: • it starts with a personal attack—apparently giving any credence to conservatives is embarrassing? • it completley ignores the underlying principles of individually liberty • in fact, it completely steamrolls individual concerns in favor of abstract social groups • it's unabashedly populist: instead of making a real argument, it's about "not embarrassing ourselves" • it implicitly inserts the speaker as a defender for some nebulous "marginalized" groups, with no real basis Of course, in this case, the marginalized groups are using social and legal pressure to suppress any dissent. Which isn't a product of being marginalized—and can't be justified by it either. But I guess your views are so obviously correct that we shouldn't countenance any disagreement at all. Long on pathos, long on populism and short on substance. And yet it's all too indicative of much of the discussion I hear in Berkeley, at the very least. (Fancy that.) It's also disturbingly unwilling to consider any contrary opinions. Apparently that would be letting someone (other than you, of course!) "set the narrative". The scariest thing is that this is exactly the sort of reasoning used to justify taking away people's rights. And, at least for now, it seems to be working. I can't even tell if you're being entirely serious, or I'm just missing the parody and tearing down a straw man.

dmazin 12y ago
Perhaps you would be better off no longer showing up at my house, which is in Berkeley, where I (personally) do not welcome you any longer. You have expressed questionable, unchecked views previously, besides this, e.g. your worrisome views on Julie Ann Horvath's treatment. Sorry I'm ruining your HN by challenging that many of the articles posted here are about marginalized groups, rather than by marginalized groups. Edit: I reread this and note that this is NOT a threat. You would face no aggression coming to my house, I meant that if Berkeley's discussions are too progressive for you, perhaps my house where I live is not your kinda thing.
- tikhonj 12y ago
  Oh yes, heaven forfend that you ever have to interact with people that you disagree with. Then again, I suppose it is consistent, at the very least.

tzs 12y ago

Christians are a marginalized group?! Also, he did not attack those groups. He accused them of trying to censor disagreeable opinions, which in fact they often do. Why did you "[...]" out "patriots, foreign despots"? By removing that, and leaving only groups you considered to be marginalized, you make it look like he is focusing on marginalized groups rather than focusing on groups that try to censor disagreeable opinions. Furthermore, he explicitly says a couple paragraphs down that conservatives are not "free from sin on this issue", and gives examples of conservative attempts to censor provocative art, further weakening the claim that the article is an attack on marginalized groups.