Comment by bostonsre | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bostonsre | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Conflating these things is a favorite straw man of people who simply feel scared and angry that they don't always get to be jerks with zero social or career implications (try going around saying you are a satanist and see how that affects your career, this isn't a new thing, just people are whining about it more loudly lately). They are very much not the same.

I find it hard to believe that the anti cancelation argument is purely made by evil jerks (e.g. I don't consider lex to be a jerk). You don't think it's easier now than ever before to be 'canceled' by a social media mob? Don't there have to be some negative consequences to allowing for permanent cancelations? By all means, people that do extremely horrible things should be shunned but how and where does the line get drawn for the more mediocre offenses? Also, people are fallible, they screw up and make mistakes. Do they have a right to make amends and be forgiven for dumb things they did in the past?

It almost seems like it's trending towards a crowd sourced social credit system similar to what the CCP implemented.

I am not on the left or right, but shouting social media mobs with pitch forks doesn't seem like the best way to achieve internet 'justice'.

Being harassed/doxed is different than being cancelled

It is important to disambiguate the two

The difference being that in one case they harass you directly and in the other they harass your employer, family, and any future employers?

Unorganized individuals from twitter contacting your employer isn't harassment. If it is the implications would be scary the other way around: would you punish someone who pointed out a problem that happened to become popular on a social network?

That's not how cancelling works, except maybe in the case of celebrities. When you are canceled, no one calls and has a polite chat with your employer. They call and threaten your employer with arson. They find where you live and vandalize your home. It's harassment. It's illegal.

That line seems blurry to me. How do you define both and where is the line? I'm not sure that many angry emotional twitter users contemplate any line, I would assume most just think "I strongly disagree with that person's opinion or actions and I must punish them". I think most people would agree that harassment and doxing are bad, but I also think that most people would think that doing bad things to "bad" people is sometimes ok. Mobs of emotional people are not paragons of morality, bad actions by a few quickly spread and the morality of the mob normalizes to that new worse level.

I don't see how you can possibly say it's easier now than ever. Past incarnations of this type of thing like the KKK, lynch mobs, witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, often had legal authority and canceled you from Earth rather than just forcing you to use some platform other than Twitter or Facebook to publish your opinion. Nor are Hollywood blacklists a remotely new thing. The only new element is the blacklistable offenses have changed from support of communists and various left radicals to sexual harassment and racism.

> I don't see how you can possibly say it's easier now than ever. Past incarnations of this type of thing like the KKK, lynch mobs, witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, often had legal authority and canceled you from Earth rather than just forcing you to use some platform other than Twitter or Facebook to publish your opinion.

I was talking specifically about "cancelling" people with social media mobs to shout down opposing views or harass them into submission. The scale and ease at which it can be done has allowed it to be used as a tool to beat down morally reprehensible individuals as well as some that have arguably reasonable views.

> Nor are Hollywood blacklists a remotely new thing. The only new element is the blacklistable offenses have changed from support of communists and various left radicals to sexual harassment and racism.

I make no claim that sexual harassment and racism are good things or that they should be allowed. My problem is with the gray area that is harder to say whether or not it is allowed. I think trump is a corrupt numbskull, but I think it is absolutely horrible to attempt to "cancel" people or organizations that openly support him and I think the whole idea of shouting down or harassing opposing viewpoints that a good portion of society consider to be reasonable into submission is reprehensible.

Vigilante mobs are not rational entities, they should not be used as a tool to win arguments. Their use will continue to further radicalize both sides of the spectrum and I don't see how they could possibly lead to anything good for humanity. Anyone or any group that says I think this therefore I am correct and they are wrong should be looked at skeptically. Policies and issues need to be discussed academically and not through twitter shouting matches.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com