Hacker News Reader

Comment by Bud | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

The claims of "cancel culture" may well be from people who should be "shunned from society" (as some would say), but it's very true that some people (definitely not all) "practicing" cancel culture can have a "guilty until proven innocent" mindset. Being correct often does not mean you're always correct; The left is not immune from hiveminding.

I say this as a left leaning person.

It's not even left leaning thinking. It's just socially extremely progressive neo liberalism. Most marxists would be aghast at the idea of siding with giant corporations to unperson and deny dignity to an individual with a non mainstream political opinion or what have you.

Yes, mob justice and public humiliation are very useful when people do and think things you don't like. Just what we need to deeply heal our damaged society.

Except there was no "mob justice" here; you are overreacting and using terms that should be reserved for violent consequences in situations that do not justify such words.

I understand why you have to exaggerate, though.

And I can understand why you have to minimize. Although, I don't understand how anyone fails to fear the consequences of "people being held accountable by society for their conduct"—an idea that gladdens the hearts of authoritarians, sectarians, and zealots who are absolutely convinced of their righteousness and moral superiority. It will not result in healing, but in deeper division and ever greater polarization. Healing starts with forgiveness and compassion, not with insults, firings, banishments, purity spirals, and language policing.

I would say that a compromise position can be found.

Certainly I join in your healthy fears of some misguided actions which have been attributed to "cancel culture". And I also concede that there have been quite a few such actions.

However, I'd also ask that you recognize that many of the reactions and consequences attributed to "cancel culture" have been entirely justified, and appropriate, and have resulted in overall good outcomes to society.

You don't wait for a violent consequence you prevent it. In classical realism or game theory you prepare your defenses according to what your adversary COULD do, not what you think they're going to do. Any and all pushback against giving tech companies the power to do something awful they haven't done yet and may never do is justified. You don't just roll over and say "oh, don't worry, it'll be fine they'd never do that."

There is nothing useful or healing about it. You can do that to a single person, not to a half of your country.

No one understands the true nature of the "woke mob" and "cancel culture" until several thousand people on the interwebs threaten to have you fired, shot, and your family murdered because of a simple mis-understanding. Until this happens to all the virtue-signaling crusaders out there they will continue to claim cancel culture doesn't exist, that only the racists, white supremacists, and "people who deserved it" have this happen to them.

It's not possible to apologize in these cases as if you admit any culpability it WILL be used against you to do as much additional damage as can be done. You can't backtrack, you must simply weather the storm and hope your employer who's known you much longer than a pack of wild woke-mobbers will give you the benefit of the doubt rather than assume that you eat minority children for breakfast.

https://www.businessinsider.com/barack-obama-slams-call-out-...

> Former President Barack Obama derided "call-out culture" in a speech at the Obama Foundation summit on Tuesday, saying achieving real change was more complex than being "as judgmental as possible."

> "That is not activism," he concluded. "That is not bringing about change. If all you're doing is casting stones, you are probably not going to get that far."

There was no "red scare". Joe McCarthy was simply holding Communists accountable for their beliefs.

This is such an apt retort that I'm sure people are downvoting you out of pure cognitive dissonance.

Why can't they just disagree with the analogy? After all, analogies are inherently a comparison of two different things. People are prone to reaching for analogies as essentially just an insulting oversimplification, by pointing to something Very Bad (frequently a dramatic historical horror) and simply declaring that it is equivalent to whatever they're criticizing. Part of the allure is the positive feedback back-patting that frequently comes with it, without adding anything else (e.g. your reply, and the "insanely apt" reply from a now-banned account).

Regardless, it's destructive to reasoned discourse to treat people like enemies ("cognitive dissonance" is being used as an insult here) when the only thing you know is that they disagreed with you.

It's insanely apt and spot on. I'm going to be using it from now on.

He's being down-voted because it's whataboutism. It's no different than the 50 Cent Army that suddenly cares about Native Americans when the topic of the Uyghurs comes up. Yes, the red scare was bad, yes the US's treatment of indigenous people was bad. Everyone agrees about this. There's no school district in the US that uses a history textbook that says the Sioux deserved it and McCarthy had the right idea. The fact that similiar bad things happened in the past does not excuse them in the present. If anything it makes it more reprehensible that they happen today despite the example of what to do.

Whataboutism can sometimes be a valid declaration of hypocrisy.

But there's no hypocrisy. Nobody is saying McCarthy was right or endorsing his tactics.

Edit: It appears I may have misinterpreted the initial comments sarcasm as a "if McCarthy could do it then it's fair game" rather than a criticism of modern outrage mob tactics.

Plenty of people in this thread have effectively endorsed McCarthyism. You don't have to look far - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26730485

> Nobody is saying McCarthy was right or endorsing his tactics.

You are correct that they are in fact not saying that; the hypocrisy is in then turning around and saying that cancel culture is right and endorsing their tactics.

I don't understand where you're coming from because I absolutely see the woke crowd using McCarthyite tactics.

Cancel Culture is not deliberately misleading, unless you think it is ok to lose your job because you cracked your knuckles. Being held accountable by society is one thing, losing your livelihood is another. Most major crimes have a statue of limitations, but cancel culture doesn't. If you said something 10 years ago, that is enough that apparently you should never work again. Is that the kind of accountability we want? One person asked me, why should someone keep their job who doesn't believe in Sandy Hook? Why should they lose their job because of their belief? The punishment doesn't fit the crime. Look at the recent Madorlorian firings. One person says we are going down a dark path, and is fire. Meanwhile her corworker likens American to nazis (using photos from a different country) and he keeps his job.

So no, it isn't a way to describe people behing held accountable. It is a thing that is going on, by a small group to get rid of people that they don't like. It is abhorrent, and it is very toxic. It is most definitely not how society is supposed to work. I may not like what you have to say, but I will fight for your right to say it, and "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is how society is supposed to work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com