Hacker News Reader

>But that, once upon a time, and it wasn't too long ago, there was a thing known as "civil discourse" in this country. In which (and granted the boundaries are fuzzy hear) -- in itself the mere fact of having an unpopular (or difficult) opinion on the state of the world ... did not run such an alarmingly and dysfunctional risk of getting you shut down in form or another as it does today.

But doesn't this cut both ways? Once upon a time it wasn't possible to spout whatever's in one's head to countless people at once. The surface area is much larger today, and so are the consequences.

This is a consequence of the Internet. In the old days if you said something stupid people would laugh at you and that would be the end of it. Now if you say something stupid and it ends up online people will dig it out of your past to use against you. This is an especially big problem for people who were edgy in their youth but are older now. Societal standards shifted out from under them and you aren't grandfathered in the court of public opinion.

The surface area isn't always all that big. The student's essay, cited in the article, had to do with comments she made within the walls of a college classroom. And I think that essay (if I didn't mix it up with another one) talked about students getting lambasted on social media for their comments in class.

I think among the action items that TFA suggests for discussion, another could be: "What happens in class stays in class." If a student needs to be called out for egregious behavior, that can be handled by the teacher.

Also, things like electronically submitted essays and papers need to be deleted from any kind of server or database once the class is finished.

> Spouting sheer idiocy can (and should) get you shunned and shamed

This is where the modern world has an issue. The window of what is considered beyond the pale has grown quite a big larger than it was in the past. In the old days you would never hear the President of the US repeating obviously fabricated insane conspiracy theories.

> The window of what is considered beyond the pale has grown quite a big larger than it was in the past.

Nonsense. I was born into a world where being gay was beyond the pale. My parents were born into a world where interracial marriage was beyond the pale, and advocating for integration in some states could get you shot. For most of my grandparents lives it was literally a crime to be a socialist, or to hand out leaflets opposing WW1. When my parents were children the state was busy arresting people for distributing information about birth control, and beating up anti-war protesters. There was a government agency that controlled “decency” in media. When I was growing up people lost careers over protesting the Iraq War. Jon Stewart lost his first hosting job after Marilyn Manson burned a bible on set, and Sinead O’Connor got death threats for (correctly) accusing the pope of covering up child sexual abuse on SNL.

We are not a perfect country, there is always room for improvement. But the idea that the range of “cancelable” acts is wider than it used to be is absolute nonsense. We have way more free speech now than we’ve ever had in our past, its not even close.

In the old days you would never hear the President of the US repeating obviously fabricated insane conspiracy theories.

You must be a youngster because yeah, that did happened in the old days.

Scale matters. And in terms of sheer magnitude of insanity and frequency of its emission -- no one who has held that office can hold a candle to number 45.

I would seriously disagree with that statement.

Your disagreement is noted, but arguments supported by examples would better support your view.

> The window of what is considered beyond the pale has grown quite a big larger than it was in the past.

I'd say it's worse than that. Our information diets are so heterogeneous, that with respect to certain topics, it's plausible that two people might have non-overlapping windows of what they consider reasonable/plausible, and of what they consider totally bat-shit insane. e.g., your uncle's views on climate change fall into your bat-shit insane window, and your views on climate change fall into your uncle's bat-shit insane window.

> But that, once upon a time, and it wasn't too long ago, there was a thing known as "civil discourse" in this country. In which (and granted the boundaries are fuzzy hear) -- in itself the mere fact of having an unpopular (or difficult) opinion on the state of the world ... did not run such an alarmingly and dysfunctional risk of getting you shut down in form or another as it does today.

This is so disconnected with history its almost delusional. Go read about how civil rights advocates were treated in the south, or gay rights advocates a mere 30 years ago. Go read about how distributing information on birth control was a crime, or how being a socialist brought the state down on you. Go read about the labor movement before WW2, and how many workers and would be reformers were shot for their words.

For a decent chunk of the 20th century, straying outside the bounds of “civil discourse” wouldn’t get you “shut down”, it might get you killed or jailed.

This doesn't prove that we haven't taken steps backwards in terms of what is allowed as civil discourse in recent years. You're correct that many things were once completely unallowed by virtue of repercussions, which we now see as within the overton window. We've worked towards getting better though and we shouldn't throw that away. What people today are reacting to is that it feels like we are less free to speak our minds, at least on some topics, than we were just a few decades ago. Just because it used to be worse long before that doesn't mean it isn't a problem worth dealing with now. Racism also used to be much worse than it is today, but that's not an excuse for the amount of racism that still exists either.

> What people today are reacting to is that it feels like we are less free to speak our minds, at least on some topics, than we were just a few decades ago.

And yet nobody ever produces any evidence that that’s actually true. This is particularly troubling when people are asserting that something ought to be done culturally or legislatively, when all they’ve got is a vague feeling that things are getting worse.

Such observations seem to be completely disjoint from the rapid widening of the overton window that’s happened since the advent of the “alt-right” and to the lesser extent the dirtbag left. I cannot square the evidence free assertion that people feel less free to speak their minds with nazi marches in major cities chanting about jews, and tucker carlson talking about white replacement theory on prime time television. These two things are fundamentally incompatible.

> cortisone rush

This is such an outstanding term. Sometimes I’ll see a comment of someone arguing with me or insulting me and I’ll get a spike of anger and literally feel my eyes twitch for a split second and I’ve never really thought about it but that’s exactly what it is.

https://xkcd.com/386/

Whatever it is you are experiencing it is definitely not cortisone, which is an inactive metabolite of cortisol.

One trick is to internally sing the comments that you suspect might give you that reaction.