Comment by AsyncAwait | Hacker News Reader

Comment by AsyncAwait | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I am going to be honest, I consider myself on the left side of the spectrum, but I am disgusted by the outrage culture on Twitter etc. Besides censorship, I believe it's a tactic by neoliberal types to pretend to be on the left by virtue signaling, but not actually addressing any of the economics I care about, (medicare for all, free college etc.), so I actually agree with you there.

That being said, what I also dislike is someone who seems to have no core beliefs whatsoever and instantly runs to the "intellectual dark web" bashing "the left", without acknowledging that what he refers to is a rather vocal minority, nor acknowledging the authoritarian tendencies of "the intellectual dark web" and basically just going with whoever is willing to air his grievances in a completely sympathetic, uncritical manner. It smells of opportunism, rather than some sincerely held belief.

Then there's the question of whether it is wise to communicate such issues across your company in the manner that he did. I am not saying it's right, but the world is a certain way and if one wants to change it, he/she needs to also be prepared for the consequences.

Your last line invalidates everything you just said.

The point is not whether he is deemed unpopular or takes a risk....the idea is that the ability to have that conversation should be honored. It is a debate and if there is an argument to be made, let it be made.

If the majority disagree that is their right but respecting the fact someone has a differing opinion is the point.

"Great minds think alike....lesser minds seldom differ".

Let's take your statement and apply it to something else. Are you indicating the early women of the #MeToo movement got what they deserved for speaking up about the disgusting acts committed against them in the early days? The ones whose careers were destroyed?

This cuts both ways and what we are looking for is balance.

You seem to be attacking an argument I did not make.

I agree that the ability to have a conversation should be honored by the broader society, hence why I dislike Twitter outrage culture.

This is separate from whether there would be consequences for your employment at a company wishing to minimize negative PR around itself.

So to reiterate, his ability to have the conversation outside of work should absolutely be tolerated and protected. Within a work environment however, it is currently unreasonable to expect the same free speech rights as one is guaranteed from the state, regardless of my opinion that this should not be the case.

Therefore getting dismissed should not be a surprising outcome.

I'm cautious about approaching culture war threads, but I have to ask this question:

What is your definition of "neoliberalism?" To my understanding, it is a center-left economic ideology that promotes globalization, free trade, and cooperation between nations as a way to lift up the poor. Neoliberals might be critical of some of the policies that you point out (e.g. free college) due to implementation concerns.

However, isn't this orthogonal to one's attitude to culture war controversies? At least from my experience lurking r/neoliberal, the people there seem reasonable and don't seem to be the overzealous "outrage culture" types, but they perceive that "neoliberal" has become a negative label associated with center-left people who disagree with say, some of the policies proposed by Sanders.

I'm usually apprehensive about getting involved in these culture war threads; please understand that I'm not advocating for any political position, I just want to understand what "neoliberalism" means from your point of view.

The issue with neoliberalism is that it does little to 'lift the poor' in practice, yet maintains strong rhetoric to that effect.

With regards to medicare for all and free college, I am an European, where these policies have been implemented to various degrees rather successfully.

My issue is with the way neoliberalism seems to be clinically used to rhetorically support many left ideas, while in reality not doing anything to get them close to reality, if not outright undermining them.

They're the ultimate 'human interventionists', so where neoconservatives will just outright acknowledge they're in it to show America's muscle, get U.S. business access to new markets, confront a competitor etc. the neoliberals tend to use a more veiled language, but ultimately peruse similar policies.

So while the Iraq War was drawn up by neocons, the Libya intervention was drawn up by neoliberals. The difference? Neoliberals used much more soft, humanitarian language, for what was ultimately a disaster of similar proportions to Iraq, including the return of slave markets.

That is my problem with neoliberals, the cynical use of floury, high-minded language in persit of ultimately goals not so different from neoconservatives after all.

Thank you for your reply. I think I understand this better now.

Thanks, I just found the perfect example to illustrate too:

https://twitter.com/RepJoeKennedy/status/1258900004623835136

The “IDW” is really just a name for a handful of folks who were attacked by outrage mobs for misrepresentations of their intellectual curiosity. It’s barely a coherent entity, and most certainly not authoritarian. What an odd charge.

And who wouldn’t talk to people willing to listen?

I find someone like Jordan Peterson to have some authoritarian tendencies for sure, but his fans would probably call them "strong opinions". That's fair, abet I doubt that generous interpretation would be extended to someone they disagree with.

Just notice how the IDW feels strongly about free speech, but when it comes to the issue of Palestine and specifically incentivizing disinvestment from Israeli occupied territory in the West Bank, they suddenly have less than nothing to say about it, not to mention the issue of U.S. States passing anti-boycott laws censoring BDS and yet crickets from the IDW.

Being selective in your concern for free speech and only criticizing one side seems hardly "intellectual" to me and I can't take it seriously.

P.S. While the IDW is not exactly defined, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dark_web#Associat... has a decent list.

"X has been silent on Y," is generally not a fair criticism. Not speaking about a topic is the norm, since time is finite and there are uncountable numbers of issues to discuss, even within a specific topic.

Except they know about the issue, were pointed to it multiple times, even by me and are always quick to proclaim that 'Israel has the right to defend itself'.

Dave Rubin for example has had several offers from some prominent left-wing commentators to debate the issue, among others, yet he's always busy or some other excuse.

Sam Harris definitely knows about it as well, (has even spoken about BDS itself, just not their censorship), Ben Shapiro too, yet besides "Israel has the right to defend itself", (which is not the issue), crickets.

This is not an issue like whether they have played Animal Crossing, this is an issue where several states already are in violation of the First Amendment, an issue, they claim, is above all for them.

This is wilful ignorance because it would require leveling criticism at some of the same people they usually praise, instead of the usual college students and Twitter mobs, that's the issue.

Do members of the IDW avoid criticizing Israel because they support Israel, or because they think criticizing Israel would make it too easy for their opponents to label them as antisemites?

I don't think there is any way of knowing, but I suspect different individuals listed on that page have different reasons and motivations for saying what they say and not saying what they say. I'd bet on Ben Shapiro genuinely supporting Israel, but some of the rest I'm not sure about (I suspect at least some of those on that list are genuinely antisemites. For instance: https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/ukip-candidate-carl-benja...)

Anyway my point is it's much easier to judge people based on what they say, rather than what they don't say.

> Do members of the IDW avoid criticizing Israel because they support Israel, or because they think criticizing Israel would make it too easy for their opponents to label them as antisemites?

That I do not know for sure, but isn't their trademark to speak openly regardless of what their opponents would label them as?

It's easy to attack college students. If they're afraid to criticism Israel, they can't claim to stand for free speech regardless of what they opponents think, as they often do.

> but isn't their trademark to speak openly regardless of what their opponents would label them as?

That's not clear to me, no. To be frank it's not clear to me the 'IDW' categorization has much worth at all if it includes people as diametrically opposed as fervent zionists and antisemitic neonazis. It's a very loose categorization at best.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com