Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimbokun | Hacker News Reader

> For people to stop calling it "cancel culture" whenever they face reasonable consequences for actions they take that harm others would be a good start.

Someone having an opinion different than you does not cause you harm.

This is the Big Lie underlying a lot of the rhetoric that has been labeled "cancel culture".

The potential harm at shutting down the opportunity to find out you were wrong about something by hearing viewpoints different from yours, is far greater than whatever harms you fear from the words themselves.

View on HN

Nobody is getting cancelled for having a different opinion on tax rates or foreign policy.

There are very specific and narrow types of speech that lead to 'cancellation,' and it's almost always speech that attacks people's identity, race, and sexuality. Historically that type of speech has been equated with harm.

I agree that’s there’s a pattern for what gets you cancelled, but there is absolutely not a list published somewhere that tells you what subjects to avoid.

Nah, someone just needs to claim you are attacking someone’s identity. It doesn’t have to be true.

Commonly it’s someone attacking some progressive policy, and then progressives claiming it is an attack on identity, even when many people of the identity supposedly under attack share the same views.

I said "for actions they take that harm others", and you jumped to some trivial difference of opinion. If the difference of opinion is supporting policy that hurts me or people I care about, then yes, of course it can harm me.

You are saying that someone can use freedom of expression to say people I care about should not have human rights, but I can't say those people shouldn't be employed by some company.

Freedom of expression swings both ways. I agree we should think about the harm done, ensure it is real, and what level of consequence is reasonable before acting, but that doesn't mean there are no situations action is justified.

> "You are saying that someone can use freedom of expression to say people I care about should not have human rights, but I can't say those people shouldn't be employed by some company."

Like unborn fetuses? (I am pro-choice by the way.) The pro-life side care about them and feel they should have human rights and, by the silly paradox of tolerance people seem to love to quote, they're even justified in not tolerating those who don't tolerate their beliefs. So do you really believe that freedom of expression swings both ways and are willing to allow them to enact their consequences on those who don't agree with them?

Maybe you should rethink the implications of what you are saying.

Yes. I believe that those people should be able to judge me and socially shun me, including calling for my firing, if I express that I am pro-choice.

I think they are wrong, but it's on me to try and persuade enough people that I'm right.

If they see it as I support murdering innocent people, then how can I possibly demand they hand me money, interact with me normally, etc...? I'm certainly not going to employ someone who says "I think we should kill <group of people>".

I think they are fundamentally wrong about the core concept, I don't think it's right for them to "cancel" people over that as a result, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal to do so, because forcing people to support behaviour they find abhorrent is worse.

Don’t yell fire in a crowded theatre. Do not libel or slander people. Do not advocate for violence.

Those kinds of speech can directly harm people.

But that is a very small part of the kinds of speech involved in what’s commonly called “cancel culture”.

How do you draw a distinction between writing an NYT op-ed to, say, support same-sex marriage, voting for a candidate who supports same sex marriage, and signing a bill to allow same-sex marriage? In every case you're "just" writing something down. When does one cross the line from "just" sharing an opinion, to advocacy for that opinion to political action on favor of a policy?

Phrased differently, if someone advocates for a policy that I believe will be harmful, why should I treat that differently than a stated intent to harm me?

> Phrased differently, if someone advocates for a policy that I believe will be harmful, why should I treat that differently than a stated intent to harm me?

For the same reason you shouldn't treat someone who wants to raise your taxes and give it to other people as if they intend to steal from you.

Isn't that generally a conservative opinion though, that taxation is theft?

Like the reason I don't object to taxes (in general) is because I think I get value from them, even in the redistribution sense. If someone proposed to raise taxes and give all the proceeds to Jeff Bezos, I would consider that a proposal to steal from me.

> Isn't that generally a conservative opinion though, that taxation is theft?

Yes, but you don't see conservatives fire outspoken democrats for thievery, or give them the ultimatum that either they acknowledge that taxation is theft or get fired. If conservatives did that then I would tell them to stop, say that what they are doing is against free speech ideals and if abuse got too bad I'd advocate for laws against it.

Why? That's entirely their right to do.

It would be deeply unpopular and ineffective, but I don't see why it should be illegal.

> while the views that usually result in people being fired are fringe and, in a word, vile

That is not true, a large majority don't agree with many radical lefts views, but would still get fired if they voiced those opinions publicly.

For example, should trans people compete in sports of their chosen gender? Almost two thirds thinks that they shouldn't, but saying that will get you labelled anti-trans and fired from many jobs, even though you might support trans-rights completely in every other regard.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/350174/mixed-views-among-americ...

> It would be deeply unpopular and ineffective, but I don't see why it should be illegal.

It would be extremely effective as most business owners are right wing. They just don't do it because they don't care what their workers thinks, they care more about profits. But if they banded together and made this policy at every right wing owned business you would see huge consequences, as the workers can't really choose to go somewhere else.

What jobs would that get you fired from? Name one.

(this is precisely the issue with "cancel culture" discourse that Popehat identifies: there's two phenomena, one of people being removed from their jobs or facing actual life consequences. This is thankfully usually rare, and usually applies only to relatively powerful people who say relatively awful things[0]. There's also a second phenomena of people receiving any sort of criticism for a controversial statement, and panic-mongers conflate the two, to suggest that any criticism is an attempt to silence you or ruin your life. That's simply not the case. Yeah, you'll get criticized online for saying trans-women shouldn't compete in women's sports. You'll probably also be criticized for the opposite view. You're not going to get fired for either, unless you're explicitly making an issue out of it in your workplace, and then the issue isn't the particular view, it's being disruptive).

[0]: And to preempt this, yes I know it sometimes results in normal people losing their jobs. This is unusual, even among the relatively rare aspect of people losing their livelyhood.

Then debate them, run against them or campaign for politicians that will prevent or change those policies.

Which is exactly how same sex marriage came to have such broad support, by the way. Andrew Sullivan in particular tirelessly made the case for same sex marriage, including to exactly the kind of people you describe, and changed many minds.

Sure I can do all of those things, but you didn't address my question. If I think someone will harm me, I can do all of those things, but why not also do more?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com