Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway894345 | Hacker News Reader

> Fourth, when I hear people complain about "going against the progressive party line" or whatever, I generally hear people wanting to be some flavor of racist, sexist, transphobic, or just asshole-ish without consequence.

I hear this all the time, but it seems so disingenuous. There are so many national examples that no reasonable person could consider to be any of the above:

* A hispanic man was fired for accidentally making the "ok" symbol

* A data scientist was canned for citing a prominent black academic's research about the efficacy of nonviolent protest

* A journalist was forced to issue an apology for interviewing a black man who was happy about BLM but wished there was more attention on issues of violence in his community

Frothing racists indeed.

In light of cases like this, I don't know how anyone can think that cancel culture is just "punching up" or "criticizing people" or "going for people who want to use hate speech".

View on HN

Those are three anecdotes, and at least two of them are not as stark as described. The data scientist's timing was bad and his prior relationship with several stakeholders was already on the rocks. There are rumors that the worker who had no idea what the connotations of the ok symbol are has been re-hired. This is hardly anything compared to the armies of celebrities who signed the Harper's letter and are mostly complaining that they can no longer express their opinions without being criticized.

The difficulty here is that several things are happening at once. There is a problem with groupthink at some institutions, but there are also people who are trying to suppress legitimate criticism.

They are indeed anecdotes, as are the Harper’s letter signatories and many, many others. Anyway, the issue for the Nth time is not about “criticism” but “harassment”. It’s not a good faith argument to conflate these things when it has been stated over and over that this is about people targeting individuals’ employment status. This isn’t “criticism”.

The fact that it hasn’t stifled prominent, powerful people such as the Harper’s signatories is not evidence that cancel culture doesn’t exist or that it is a weak force; it means that less powerful people are effectively suppressed. You don’t hear about what you don’t hear about. Survivorship bias.

Did any of them sign that Harper's Letter?

And did I say "frothing racists?"

Also, yeah, out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made. People get things wrong sometimes. It sucks and we should use our freedom of speech to help correct those errors, not argue that freedom of speech should be shut down.

> Also, yeah, out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made. People get things wrong sometimes. It sucks and we should use our freedom of speech to help correct those errors, not argue that freedom of speech should be shut down.

There's a difference in my opinion between harassment and free speech. Notably, if you're trying to punish, threaten, or coerce someone, you fall outside of the bounds of "criticism". This may not be the legal definition, but I can't see any other definition that would be consistent with free speech ideals.

Further, because it's perhaps too difficult to legally litigate this kind of harassment, we could also approach the problem by making it more difficult for employers to terminate employees, thereby neutering the mobs (they can "speak" all they want but they can't persecute).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com