Politically-correct witch-hunt is killing free speech | Hacker News Reader

Politically-correct witch-hunt is killing free speech

sarahadowney.substack.com

60 pointsphonon56 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23719559

Whether others' behavior is 'right' or not is one moral question, but how you react to it is an independent one, and there's no good outcome from vitriol. Among other things is drives those on the other side of it to 'raise arms' in response, leading to an all-out culture war, and I'm pretty sure it's what got Trump selected.

There's some relief in the knowledge that it's way more prevalent on the internet than in real life, and most people just don't care that much. But the people most vocal on social media are also those most polarized so it _seems_ way more common than it is, which in turn sucks more people into it because they don't know otherwise.

All credibility is lost when she links to PragerU for her definition of intersectionality.

Besides that, by her own logic of free speech, people have a right to call for boycotts/cancellations, do they not?

Free speech for me, not for thee?

I think the mindset that "one off-color joke on social media leads to condemning a person entirely", as in the article, is the same mindset as "one off-color reference to a definition makes an article lose all credibility", and is toxic in either case. I see comments like this all the time on HN and it seems so unfair: the article says a lot of things that aren't affected in the slightest by whether she linked to PragerU.

The absolutism you espouse wrapped up in guilt by association exemplifies the problem - if that was your intent, bravo.

My intent was to say that PragerU is partisan propaganda, not a source for definition.

At best, someone could use it as part of an adversarial process at arriving at the truth, but the author doesn't do that. They take the definition at face value. (A ridiculous definition at that).

I wouldn't use PETA for my definition of factory farming.

So yes, if you aren't able to find a non-partisan definition , then I assume the whole piece is partisan, and therefore lacking credibility.

This is like trying to point out hypocrisy when someone calls for a restriction on falsely yelling fire in a crowded building. Some speech acts are incompatible with the ideal of free speech, and should be called out as such.

Yelling fire in a theater has never been a problem, it was only a metaphor used to defend the ridiculous supreme court decision that handing out flyers opposing the draft during World War I was an immediate threat to life and should therefore be banned.

No one ever called for bans on yelling fire in crowded places. The US government called for bans on distributing pamphlets that went against their first attempts at imperialism.

Yelling "fire" or "help" without any danger in a public place is illegal in Europe.

You lost me when you went on a diatribe about socialism, as if the modern democratic socialist movement in the US, for e.g., has a lot in common with Stalin's USSR, which was a totalitarian, authoritarian state.

Stalin's USSR did not start as a totalitarian, authoritarian state. The revolution started with several 'socialist'-related factions who claimed to want to improve the lot of the oppressed. It was after the Bolsheviks took over when things rapidly went downhill.

Do you think the same can not happen elsewhere?

For the rest the more apt comparison is between the radical left in the USA and Maoist China, complete with struggle sessions. No person so virtuous or someone will find something, anything for which that person will be made to apologise. Once the apology - and with that the confession of guilt - is in that person can be cancelled at any time, just like in Mao's China.

Also note the following, supposedly said by cardinal Richelieu: Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre which translates to If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.. This is not a new concept, the difference between Richelieu's France and Mao's China is that the accusers are not (yet) in power.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/get-ready-for-the-struggle-sess...

I have to aggree with a lot of statements made in the post. Both left and right have become more extreme defending their views, calling out 'offenders'.

Here's a small sample from across the ocean. We used to have legal and illegal immigrants in Slovenia. Most countries still do. But since leftist media found illegal to be a non-correct word they simply started using another one (prebežniki - could be translated as runaways). This in a way signifies their humanity but I ask myself what's wrong with calling a criminal a criminal?

I guess the left/right zeal is a response to politics ignoring those opinions and it's likely to get much worse until either side gets some changes into motion.

> but I ask myself what's wrong with calling a criminal a criminal?

Certain leftists–typically the loud ones–throw away the notion of international borders and private land ownership. With this in mind, the idea to them that any one person is anywhere illegally is offensive.

i can't speak for the situation in Slovenia - speaking from an US standpoint - 'illegal immigrant' puts the focus on the immigrant who is generally escaping one crappy situation for a better opportunity and generally doing the shit-work nobody else wants to do - the person is not illegal, they are undocumented (which is a misdemeanor offense in the US and generally means being deported) - our food production systems depend on these workers and those companies and this government do not want to be honest about that - notice that the employer is rarely if ever punished for knowingly hiring undocumented workers (like the US president for example) - by focusing on illegality it obscures the humanity of the person and paints the situation with a broad-brush that then allows US racists to extend this to anyone who is not white (we hear many stories from people of color of being told to 'go home' even though they were born here)

so maybe this clarifies a little while immigration may not be the best case for talking about 'politically-correct speech'?

i highly recommend Ai Wei Wei's documentary on refugees and migration, Human Flow

> I was a Democrat for most of my life. I’m socially liberal, and that’s always been a key part of my values and my identity. I’m pro choice, pro LGBTQ rights, pro environmental issues, pro free speech, and anti-racism.

To be more clear, she's a millennial Republican.

She was born at a time where these social liberal points she tries to claim as her beliefs deserving acclaim were already long resolved in the mainstream and she seems to have no interest in working for further social justice beyond what was already fought and won before she became politically aware.

For the apparent contradictions she highlights and questions she asks there are of course reasonable answers, but she doesn't seem to have the curiosity to dig into the issues behind what the posters on twitter are referencing. Instead simply being distraught at the discourse that she doesn't understand.

It sounds like she's both socially and fiscally liberal, but doesn't identify with the mechanisms at play in the liberal sphere because they threaten individuals. In many states in the US, socially liberal policies like abortion, gay rights, etc, etc are heavily blocked and contested, so I don't agree with your characterization of these as mainstream. I agree they are mainstream among liberal Americans.

My understanding is that her article is advocating for respectful and open discourse, and greater detail and understanding of the issues is always welcome. The point I see is that a person can be offended by a post or statement, out of context of the post's intent. Currently, the discourse supports the offended person, and condemns the poster. For example, in the gentrification example, the retweet was focused on communicating relative wealth of the communities, it was not focused on the political issue of gentrification. The author was not saying she agreed with gentrification, and was expressing any opinions about race, rather, she was trying to communicate the relative wealth of the different communities. This backlash to her retweet drove her to release an apology.

Wow, @Tiktaalik.

Your claim has crossed the line to a personal attack which should not be tolerated.

Please stick to discussing the issues instead of making personal attacks in the future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com