Hacker News Reader

Comment by zajd | Hacker News Reader

https://waxy.org/2017/04/pogos-politics/

you'll note that this is from last year, before the current controversey

> “I don’t think feminists ever do what they preach. I think it’s always an ulterior motive. I think it’s a divisive cult that doesn’t achieve much more than a flock of self-entitled narcissists at the end of the day. I’ve never liked them. I’ve always thought that driving a wedge between the genders seems like a funny way to achieve equality.”

> “I think the left is bringing about the destruction of Western civilization, personally.”

> “I don’t want to make massive generalization or anything, but I think female accountability is a myth. I think under the banner of feminism, females will never be held accountable for anything. You should not critique a woman unless you are prepared for the consequences.”

View on HN

What does that have to do with hating homosexuals? I know of many people who don't like feminists but don't have a problem with homosexuals.

That's entirely unrelated though. Just because someone dislikes the left doesn't automatically make them more or less likely to dislike gay people. That's an unfortunate association with the republican right, which tends to be more religious than not.

If you think this sort of thing is entirely unrelated you haven't been paying much attention. Those kinds of "unfortunate associations" are why you don't pillory your own career by espousing reprehensible views "as a joke" (the idea that it was a joke was only brought up after the controversy)

Is making jokes and enjoying the benefit of the doubt a privilege reserved for people with the correct political opinions?

Yes? In certain circles you could get off with saying just about anything about the current US administration however in poor taste it might be. In those same circles, I wouldn't recommend off-color criticism of many people on the other end of the political spectrum.

ADDED: For those who apparently disagree with me, does anyone seriously dispute that jokes of a certain slant are going to be acceptable in some circles and considered in very poor taste in others?

It was a normative question. The social norm exists, but I wish it didn't, so I won't enforce it and I'll encourage other people not to enforce it.

Here’s the thing: you don’t get the benefit of the doubt when you hold opinions that have been demonstratably wrong for 40+ years.

It counts as evidence of your poor judgement and terrible moral compass. Especially when you espouse other opinions that are toxic trash and are highly correlated to the previous ones.

The benefit of doubt has been long used up on these topics. If you hold these opinions today as an adult you made a concious choice to be a bigot.

You're just confirming what the parent says: only people with enlightened, progressive ideas can say whatever they want.

In their company, sure. Try being a liberal at a Trump rally.

Things may have gotten worse, but there was never a time when you could freely say without consequences whatever you thought in whichever social group.

It may have felt like that if you were part of a privileged group and did not stray too far.

My question was normative, I suppose another way to rephrase it is "Do you want to live in a world where only people with the correct opinions can make jokes and enjoy the benefit of the doubt? If not, why are you enforcing social norms you don't endorse?"

The choice isn't automatic: abritinthebay apparently does endorse a hostile interpretation of any speech by people who "hold opinions that have been demonstratably wrong for 40+ years" and "made a concious choice to be a bigot", which I believe makes both comedy and nuance impossible, but at least they're honest about it.

Not at all. You appear to be trying to fit my words to your conclusion.

I’m saying demonstratably bad positions will be called out as such.

Doesn’t matter if they are or are from progressive people. So please stuff that strawman somewhere else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com