Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab(newsweek.com)
newsweek.com
Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab
https://www.newsweek.com/agent-fired-literary-agency-using-parler-gab-1564687
595 comments
I honestly don't know why people use "post what you're thinking" style social media at all at this point. With employers being so sensitive, how can the cost/benefit analysis ever really result in a determination that it's a good idea to be active on Twitter/Facebook (or Gab, Parler, TheDonald.win, etc.)?
Maybe that's part of what makes things get so extreme on those sites. The most reasonable people know enough not to risk their livelihoods by jumping in and posting, and that leaves the less reasonable people to just sit there and escalate.
Maybe that's part of what makes things get so extreme on those sites. The most reasonable people know enough not to risk their livelihoods by jumping in and posting, and that leaves the less reasonable people to just sit there and escalate.
I have literally seen NYT bestselling authors talk about how they're super excited to publicly heckle an author at his next book signing. And join in on conversations promoting burning his book.
His crime? Writing a female character who goes on the run, has limited food, and trains in martial arts--which leads to her losing weight.
This was, apparently, fat-shaming and deeply sexist.
The authors involved in these threats and book-burning talk had literally no punishment. None. Just a bunch of new followers who gushed about what "strong women" they were. (As a woman, I can't think of anything weaker than threatening to burn a book and harass someone, all for internet points.)
The thing is, Publishing Twitter is super safe if you're on the far left. You can talk about harassing people, burning books, and purposely destroying careers. Zero consequences at all.
But if you're so much as a hair right of center left? Forget it. Your career is gone.
His crime? Writing a female character who goes on the run, has limited food, and trains in martial arts--which leads to her losing weight.
This was, apparently, fat-shaming and deeply sexist.
The authors involved in these threats and book-burning talk had literally no punishment. None. Just a bunch of new followers who gushed about what "strong women" they were. (As a woman, I can't think of anything weaker than threatening to burn a book and harass someone, all for internet points.)
The thing is, Publishing Twitter is super safe if you're on the far left. You can talk about harassing people, burning books, and purposely destroying careers. Zero consequences at all.
But if you're so much as a hair right of center left? Forget it. Your career is gone.
I assume you're speaking of the Scott Bergstrom debacle?
Yeah, I remember that one. Link to Scott's interview that infuriated those authors is here: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/childrens/child...
Don't want to dox anyone and post which authors had such horrible behavior, but I will say I personally witnessed those tweets discussing book burning, stalking, and public harassment.
Yeah, I remember that one. Link to Scott's interview that infuriated those authors is here: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/childrens/child...
Don't want to dox anyone and post which authors had such horrible behavior, but I will say I personally witnessed those tweets discussing book burning, stalking, and public harassment.
Linking to someone's public posts isn't "doxing". Publicly sharing their personal details (private email address, home address, phone number, etc.) or other private information as a form if direct or indirect harassment is.
It could still result in a mob piling on them, which is exactly the behaviour they're arguing against...
Correct. I know at least one of the authors who was behaving horribly has severe depression. I don't care how horrible their behavior was, I'm not going to potentially sick an unknown internet mob on a person with suicidal tendencies.
Ah yes, they may want to chop off my head... but I would never tell them this is wrong.
I am 100% fine with telling them this is wrong. I'm quite vocal about this being wrong.
But I am not okay with unleashing random internet people on a mentally ill person, which could easily spiral into a mob that involves death threats, doxing of personal info, etc. Hell, I'm not okay doing that to a mentally healthy person.
But I am not okay with unleashing random internet people on a mentally ill person, which could easily spiral into a mob that involves death threats, doxing of personal info, etc. Hell, I'm not okay doing that to a mentally healthy person.
I'm genuinely ok with a mob piling on someone who is making stalking threats.
I think large parts of the right has now come to the conclusion that it can not hold itself to so much higher moral standards than the opposite team, or it will continue losing and moving down leagues until there is no right team left.
People can downvote this, but I've literally read right-of-center people making this argument.
[deleted]
People basically found out a new way to be an asshole. They would have been an asshole in another way if this current lane was closed and socially challenged. It just happens to be that virtue signaling and sticking some BS cause in front of your behavior lets you get away with it at this point in time.
I’m not sure that I’d call the reaction to Bergstrom a debacle. Here are a couple of quotes from the excerpt that made everyone angry:
“It’s a novel with a teenage heroine set in a dystopian future. Which novel in particular doesn’t matter because they’re all the same. Poor teenage heroine, having to go to war when all you really want is to write in your diary about how you’re in love with two different guys and can’t decide between them. These novels are cheesy, I know, and I suck them down as easily as milk.”
“They love this—the school uniform, the flash of seventeen-year-old legs.”
The first quote is a pretty direct attack at the Hunger Games. HG has a rabid following so that was risky. The second is just godawful writing. He still would have been okay but he went a little too far mocking the amount of talent needed to write YA.
Scooter Braun recently learned a lesson about screwing with media that rabid young adults identify with. It’s a bad idea, but if you’re going to do it, bring better prose. Or at least accept that the genre’s bestsellers are way better at the internet than you are.
“It’s a novel with a teenage heroine set in a dystopian future. Which novel in particular doesn’t matter because they’re all the same. Poor teenage heroine, having to go to war when all you really want is to write in your diary about how you’re in love with two different guys and can’t decide between them. These novels are cheesy, I know, and I suck them down as easily as milk.”
“They love this—the school uniform, the flash of seventeen-year-old legs.”
The first quote is a pretty direct attack at the Hunger Games. HG has a rabid following so that was risky. The second is just godawful writing. He still would have been okay but he went a little too far mocking the amount of talent needed to write YA.
Scooter Braun recently learned a lesson about screwing with media that rabid young adults identify with. It’s a bad idea, but if you’re going to do it, bring better prose. Or at least accept that the genre’s bestsellers are way better at the internet than you are.
Those quotes really don’t warrant the disproportional responses to his book nor the vitriol directed at him personally & professionally.
I think it’s time we start calling out the social media mobbing for what it really is: hateful.
I think it’s time we start calling out the social media mobbing for what it really is: hateful.
Everyone will dismiss it with the "Paradox of Tolerance".
Did you actually read his interview though? If you’re going to mock your entire genre, you should at least be accurate. Otherwise, critics will rightly point out that you’re writing a genre you don’t know. When you add in that second quote, it’s even more obvious that he doesn’t know his genre.
The dude wrote some books at a team with YA was all the rage and got a film deal out of it. He made some godawful marketing and communications decisions and faced predictable consequences. I don’t feel bad for writers who can’t communicate. Nor do I feel bad for writers who aren’t capable of thinking through how their work fits within a genre they’re trying to capitalize on. Businesses that make bad marketing decisions cancel themselves and in this case, the writer made a myriad of awful business decisions. That’s capitalism.
And seriously, who would outright mock the Hunger Games without expecting some sort of disproportionate backlash? YA works in disproportionates - it’s the entire beast, right down to the growth strategy. If you’re not wise enough to understand your genre, you lose. The thought that you could dismiss that entire genre with garbage critiques and not face bizarre retribution is so insane that I can’t take it seriously.
And if you’re going to do that after you’ve signed a film deal?? I’m sorry but you deserve to be cancelled.
The dude wrote some books at a team with YA was all the rage and got a film deal out of it. He made some godawful marketing and communications decisions and faced predictable consequences. I don’t feel bad for writers who can’t communicate. Nor do I feel bad for writers who aren’t capable of thinking through how their work fits within a genre they’re trying to capitalize on. Businesses that make bad marketing decisions cancel themselves and in this case, the writer made a myriad of awful business decisions. That’s capitalism.
And seriously, who would outright mock the Hunger Games without expecting some sort of disproportionate backlash? YA works in disproportionates - it’s the entire beast, right down to the growth strategy. If you’re not wise enough to understand your genre, you lose. The thought that you could dismiss that entire genre with garbage critiques and not face bizarre retribution is so insane that I can’t take it seriously.
And if you’re going to do that after you’ve signed a film deal?? I’m sorry but you deserve to be cancelled.
It's beyond my comprehension that anyone can believe that it was a reasonable response to some anodyne literary criticism. Hunger Games is rubbish. It's OK to say so. It's not OK to behave like a vicious lunatic because someone said the books and genre you like are rubbish. If you do lose your shit over it, then you are at best infantile and at worst mentally ill. The reaction might be predictable, but it's not defensible.
>If you do lose your shit over it, then you are at best infantile and at worst mentally ill.
The very sad, unfortunate thing is that a lot of these authors are indeed mentally ill. A lot of the ring-leaders of these mobs openly embrace their mental illness as a personality trait (ie: listing it in their Twitter bios).
It leads to this bizarre environment where their reactions are, medically speaking, insane (ie: the reaction of someone in bipolar mania, the reaction of someone suffering from paranoia or extreme anxiety.) But there are so many insane reactions, that it becomes normalized.
And then people who don't struggle with mental illness start to mimic the insane behavior, because hey, everyone else is doing it! And it's now the best way to get internet points, collect followers, and get some profitable attention to your own books.
The very sad, unfortunate thing is that a lot of these authors are indeed mentally ill. A lot of the ring-leaders of these mobs openly embrace their mental illness as a personality trait (ie: listing it in their Twitter bios).
It leads to this bizarre environment where their reactions are, medically speaking, insane (ie: the reaction of someone in bipolar mania, the reaction of someone suffering from paranoia or extreme anxiety.) But there are so many insane reactions, that it becomes normalized.
And then people who don't struggle with mental illness start to mimic the insane behavior, because hey, everyone else is doing it! And it's now the best way to get internet points, collect followers, and get some profitable attention to your own books.
>And seriously, who would outright mock the Hunger Games without expecting some sort of disproportionate backlash?
I believe you're having some selective memory issues. This was back in 2015, when "Hunger Games" was starting to lose steam. And many feminists on twitter were lampooning it for focusing on romance, and having a flimsy love triangle, when the life-or-death situation of the book wouldn't realistically allow for that.
Mocking the "Hunger Games" and any book with a love triangle was totally in vogue.
>He made some godawful marketing and communications decisions and faced predictable consequences.
It's funny, because I've seen dozens of YA authors sneer at "Fifty Shades of Grey." Call it toxic, poorly written, laugh at it, mock it, insist it was dangerous to even publish it.
Yet I've never seen the Fifty Shades of Grey fanbase, or any Romance genre authors, talk about threatening, stalking, and publicly heckling those authors who criticize the work.
You call it "predictable consequences." I call it "hateful, disturbing, potentially dangerous behavior that reeks of censorship."
I believe you're having some selective memory issues. This was back in 2015, when "Hunger Games" was starting to lose steam. And many feminists on twitter were lampooning it for focusing on romance, and having a flimsy love triangle, when the life-or-death situation of the book wouldn't realistically allow for that.
Mocking the "Hunger Games" and any book with a love triangle was totally in vogue.
>He made some godawful marketing and communications decisions and faced predictable consequences.
It's funny, because I've seen dozens of YA authors sneer at "Fifty Shades of Grey." Call it toxic, poorly written, laugh at it, mock it, insist it was dangerous to even publish it.
Yet I've never seen the Fifty Shades of Grey fanbase, or any Romance genre authors, talk about threatening, stalking, and publicly heckling those authors who criticize the work.
You call it "predictable consequences." I call it "hateful, disturbing, potentially dangerous behavior that reeks of censorship."
What could possibly be wrong with mocking the Hunger Games?
I think it's worth clarifying two things:
1) This excerpt is written from the POV of a snarky, troubled 17-year-old girl. Very different from the author himself saying these things.
2) I can excuse 14-year-old fangirls losing their minds over the Hunger Games and lashing out at anyone who criticizes it.
I can not excuse 35-year-old adults encouraging their huge following to harass the author and cheering on the idea of burning his books.
1) This excerpt is written from the POV of a snarky, troubled 17-year-old girl. Very different from the author himself saying these things.
2) I can excuse 14-year-old fangirls losing their minds over the Hunger Games and lashing out at anyone who criticizes it.
I can not excuse 35-year-old adults encouraging their huge following to harass the author and cheering on the idea of burning his books.
I find those quotes absolutely normal, what's wrong with them?
You should maybe start off with his interview with Publisher’s Weekly. He said a couple of things about the YA genre that just aren’t true. The biggest one was that he seems to think it doesn’t take a lot of brains to write YA whereas his book is somehow special.
That interview was the first time that anyone had taken any notice of Bergstrom. So then, everyone read his excerpt.
(Incidentally, that’s a bad flow in writing. If your press insults an entire genre, your excerpt better be damned flawless. This goes 100x if you’re talking YA.)
The first paragraph delivers a really traditional out of touch old dude description of the Hunger Games. That’s treading on dangerous territory because you’re dealing with a universe that young people have become deeply invested in.
The second quote violates one of the genre’s rules about writing women.
So, you’ve got a writer who signed a big contract and a film deal. His introduction to his genre’s fans was an absolute disaster. So, the genre’s fans did what they always do and made a huge mess.
Some might call it disproportionate but then they don’t understand the genre either. YA is about disproportionate reactions. That’s essentially marketing.
All of that should make everyone seriously question whether this is a Paramount growth hack. Heaven knows Paramount wouldn’t be the first company to try to create controversy when they own rights to a book.
That interview was the first time that anyone had taken any notice of Bergstrom. So then, everyone read his excerpt.
(Incidentally, that’s a bad flow in writing. If your press insults an entire genre, your excerpt better be damned flawless. This goes 100x if you’re talking YA.)
The first paragraph delivers a really traditional out of touch old dude description of the Hunger Games. That’s treading on dangerous territory because you’re dealing with a universe that young people have become deeply invested in.
The second quote violates one of the genre’s rules about writing women.
So, you’ve got a writer who signed a big contract and a film deal. His introduction to his genre’s fans was an absolute disaster. So, the genre’s fans did what they always do and made a huge mess.
Some might call it disproportionate but then they don’t understand the genre either. YA is about disproportionate reactions. That’s essentially marketing.
All of that should make everyone seriously question whether this is a Paramount growth hack. Heaven knows Paramount wouldn’t be the first company to try to create controversy when they own rights to a book.
>YA is about disproportionate reactions. That’s essentially marketing.
I think you are entirely missing the point of these comments, which is: the "disproportionate reactions" of the YA community are hateful, bizarre, mob-like, and often dip into censorship.
You're also stating that the "genre's fans" are to blame. As the comments above clearly state, the criticism in this thread is toward the professional authors who take part in these mobs. Not the "young people."
I think you are entirely missing the point of these comments, which is: the "disproportionate reactions" of the YA community are hateful, bizarre, mob-like, and often dip into censorship.
You're also stating that the "genre's fans" are to blame. As the comments above clearly state, the criticism in this thread is toward the professional authors who take part in these mobs. Not the "young people."
Ah, reminds me of the difference of treatment between Sam and Frodo in Lord of the Rings:
>> Looking in a mirror he was startled to see a much thinner reflection of himself than he remembered: it looked remarkably like the young nephew of Bilbo who used to go tramping with his uncle in the Shire; but the eyes looked at him thoughtfully.
> Pauline Baynes's illustration of the Fellowship, done while Tolkien was alive, shows all four hobbits as being of very much the same proportions. Oddly enough, the movie shows Sam as more or less the same build when he leaves Hobbiton and when he reaches Mordor, even though he had some weeks of semi-starvation.
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/92576/is-there-any...
>> Looking in a mirror he was startled to see a much thinner reflection of himself than he remembered: it looked remarkably like the young nephew of Bilbo who used to go tramping with his uncle in the Shire; but the eyes looked at him thoughtfully.
> Pauline Baynes's illustration of the Fellowship, done while Tolkien was alive, shows all four hobbits as being of very much the same proportions. Oddly enough, the movie shows Sam as more or less the same build when he leaves Hobbiton and when he reaches Mordor, even though he had some weeks of semi-starvation.
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/92576/is-there-any...
FWIW, in Lord of the Rings, it was implied that the change in Frodo was due to carrying the One Ring, and that it was due to it that he couldn't rejoin normal life while the other Hobbits could (and in Shire, ultimately became much more famous)
No, not when that scene happens. It clearly was a comment he made on how he got healthier by walking around.
It's early in the book.
It's early in the book.
Ah. Well, he was the lazy stay-at-home guy of the four hobbits before the adventure :)
Samwise did hard physical work regularly, and Meriadock and Pippin while also somewhat pampered (remember, of the four hobbit, only Sam wasn't nobility!) were somewhat known for their adventures.
Samwise did hard physical work regularly, and Meriadock and Pippin while also somewhat pampered (remember, of the four hobbit, only Sam wasn't nobility!) were somewhat known for their adventures.
If you go with the horseshoe theory then the far left is barely distinguishable from the far right. The only thing that changes really is the framing of the issue and the motivation.
If you're looking at people being criticised because they're not writing characters of their own skin colour or sexuality, or 'staying in their lane' with their culture, or because their own experiences don't conform to some expectation (like the author criticised for describing slavery but not how it was in the US), then you're still looking at segregation and oppression, but approaching it in a way that is falsely empowering. It is still massively authoritarian and oppressive and extreme, no matter how virtuous people think the left wing is, and it's certainly not liberal. There's just nothing good about being at the extreme end of anything.
But that aside, and with the crowds on twitter, I just wonder what it will take for people like that to be happy, and not perpetually angry. So much aggression couched in seemingly kind language.
If you're looking at people being criticised because they're not writing characters of their own skin colour or sexuality, or 'staying in their lane' with their culture, or because their own experiences don't conform to some expectation (like the author criticised for describing slavery but not how it was in the US), then you're still looking at segregation and oppression, but approaching it in a way that is falsely empowering. It is still massively authoritarian and oppressive and extreme, no matter how virtuous people think the left wing is, and it's certainly not liberal. There's just nothing good about being at the extreme end of anything.
But that aside, and with the crowds on twitter, I just wonder what it will take for people like that to be happy, and not perpetually angry. So much aggression couched in seemingly kind language.
I don't think the horseshoe theory works. The critical factor is authoritarianism. Which is a grown-up word for bullying and narcissism.
Authoritarians are invariably toxic damaged people who are full of rage and are looking for a target to make themselves feel better.
Sometimes they end up on the left. Sometimes they end up on the right. Sometimes they end up in management or venture capital.
Same issues, same dynamic, different context.
The difference is authoritarians on the right are more likely to use physical violence. "Cultural" authoritarians are more likely to use social exclusion - brigading on social media, getting people fired, and so on.
The key point is that the presenting issue is irrelevant. The social dynamic and mode of relationship - angry tribalism used to justify violence without any sense of context - is the real tell.
Authoritarians are invariably toxic damaged people who are full of rage and are looking for a target to make themselves feel better.
Sometimes they end up on the left. Sometimes they end up on the right. Sometimes they end up in management or venture capital.
Same issues, same dynamic, different context.
The difference is authoritarians on the right are more likely to use physical violence. "Cultural" authoritarians are more likely to use social exclusion - brigading on social media, getting people fired, and so on.
The key point is that the presenting issue is irrelevant. The social dynamic and mode of relationship - angry tribalism used to justify violence without any sense of context - is the real tell.
You're just redescribing the horseshoe theory. The X axis is political leaning, the Y axis is level of authoritarianism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
Horseshoe theory implies (if not explies, if that's a word) that going far left or far right automatically entails becoming authoritarian, and that they converge as you go farther "left" or "right". That's pretty demonstrably false, and even a two-dimensional political compass (let alone one with more axes) does a much better job of describing actual political stances than a horseshoe can. Authoritarianism v. libertarianism and socialism v. capitalism are separate and independent axes, and societies have existed across the whole gamut, corner-to-corner-to-corner-to-corner and everything in between.
I always viewed it as descriptive and not prescriptive, so I wouldn't say it implies movement across the authoritarian axis just by moving more right or left.
I feel like even as a descriptive theory it doesn't really map all that well to reality, though.
Pretty sure leftist authoritarianism exists and is violent. i.e.: Communist Russia, Maoist China, Cuba.
Portland.
Bob Altemeyer would disagree. He formulated the idea of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) as a psychological condition. His research discovered that there is no corresponding left-wing authoritarianism -- that even the authoritarianism exhibited by followers of Stalin or Mao was right-wing.
Kinda hard to be authoritarian if one of your central beliefs is in the fraternity and equality of all. It's more useful to describe Stalinist USSR or Maoist China as right-wing regimes cloaked in leftist rhetoric.
Kinda hard to be authoritarian if one of your central beliefs is in the fraternity and equality of all. It's more useful to describe Stalinist USSR or Maoist China as right-wing regimes cloaked in leftist rhetoric.
Thomas Costello has found countering data: https://psyarxiv.com/3nprq, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00926...
This sums it up pretty well: "Left-wing authoritarians, in Costello's research, typically strongly agree with the following statements: the rich should be stripped of their belongs and status; deep-down just about all conservatives are racist, sexist and homophobic; classrooms can be safe spaces that protect students from the discussion of harmful ideas." (https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/05/there-suc...)
All of which lines up with the rhetoric from the Bolsheviks and the Maoists and a lot of the modern day critical race theorists.
This sums it up pretty well: "Left-wing authoritarians, in Costello's research, typically strongly agree with the following statements: the rich should be stripped of their belongs and status; deep-down just about all conservatives are racist, sexist and homophobic; classrooms can be safe spaces that protect students from the discussion of harmful ideas." (https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/05/there-suc...)
All of which lines up with the rhetoric from the Bolsheviks and the Maoists and a lot of the modern day critical race theorists.
Have to agree. If Mao and Stalin can be disqualified as being left-wing due to the contradiction between their actions and the leftist values of equality and universal solidarity, then, by the same token, Hitler and Mussolini must be disqualified as being right-wing because of the contradiction between their actions and the values of limited government and rule of law.
Critical race theory has more in common with National Socialism than with the leftist values of equality and solidarity, because when you get past the verbal subterfuge which ostensibly denies that race exists, you find a deeply racist ideology of racial collectives locked in a struggle for supremacy, with one particular collective singled out as evil beyond redemption and in need of destruction. We have seen that before, and it is undeniable where it must lead. Critical Race Theory is Nazism barely disguised by a light sprinkling of leftist pixie-dust.
The common factor between the extremes of left and right is collectivism. Totalitarian demagogues, left or right, favor collectivism as a tool of control because it detaches people from their moral obligations to other individual human beings and transfers their loyalties wholly to an abstraction controlled by that demagogue.
Critical race theory has more in common with National Socialism than with the leftist values of equality and solidarity, because when you get past the verbal subterfuge which ostensibly denies that race exists, you find a deeply racist ideology of racial collectives locked in a struggle for supremacy, with one particular collective singled out as evil beyond redemption and in need of destruction. We have seen that before, and it is undeniable where it must lead. Critical Race Theory is Nazism barely disguised by a light sprinkling of leftist pixie-dust.
The common factor between the extremes of left and right is collectivism. Totalitarian demagogues, left or right, favor collectivism as a tool of control because it detaches people from their moral obligations to other individual human beings and transfers their loyalties wholly to an abstraction controlled by that demagogue.
I completely agree. Honestly, I'm pretty sure those people have no friends in real life, the way they jump down peoples' throats for every minor thing, so they gravitate online to find echo chambers. Their cohorts online are only "allies", not real friends. They will turn on each other as soon as one of them challenges their ideology.
I agree that it isn't really about 'left' or 'right', as both leanings are held by plenty of rational non-extreme people. Extremism itself seems to be growing in our culture, and as long as we're focused on putting a political label on it I think it will continue to grow. It is very tempting to believe that everyone you disagree with is part of the most extreme representation of that disagreement, because that makes it easy to dismiss them, and ultimately I think that just pushes people more to the extreme ends.
I don't know how we get out of this. I can't think of a good way to encourage empathy over outrage, as the former is often too painful and the latter often too enjoyable. In the information age it is far too easy to find the hedonistic outrage-dens, and there's a lot of money to be had running such places.
Speaking of likening echo chambers to opium dens, the Rat Park[0] experiments suggest that environment does play a significant role in drug-seeking behavior, and it does seem that a lot of this extremism can be traced back to things like the increasing wealth-gap, the hollowing out of rural America, systemic racism, rampant political corruption, and other societal ills. Therefore, maybe it isn't necessary to address the symptom of extremism directly --by, say, trying to teach people empathy-- but instead focus on treating the underlying illnesses. Of course, since our politicians are elected by the people they represent, and it would seem far easier to manipulate people's outrage for votes than to focus on actually fixing things, that might not be possible either.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
I don't know how we get out of this. I can't think of a good way to encourage empathy over outrage, as the former is often too painful and the latter often too enjoyable. In the information age it is far too easy to find the hedonistic outrage-dens, and there's a lot of money to be had running such places.
Speaking of likening echo chambers to opium dens, the Rat Park[0] experiments suggest that environment does play a significant role in drug-seeking behavior, and it does seem that a lot of this extremism can be traced back to things like the increasing wealth-gap, the hollowing out of rural America, systemic racism, rampant political corruption, and other societal ills. Therefore, maybe it isn't necessary to address the symptom of extremism directly --by, say, trying to teach people empathy-- but instead focus on treating the underlying illnesses. Of course, since our politicians are elected by the people they represent, and it would seem far easier to manipulate people's outrage for votes than to focus on actually fixing things, that might not be possible either.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
It's interesting you're being downvoted - because from the way I'm reading this you're not advocating that this theory is true but merely pointing out that it exists, describing it's attributes, and showing a couple of examples that seem to overlap with the theory. Which only seems to shore up your last statement.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> is super safe if you're on the far left
Liberals are not considered the "far left" and people on the far left dislike them as much as people on the right do.
This isn't a "no true Scotsman" issue either, there are clear distinctions between various left-wing ideologies and mainstream liberalism (radical or not). Finger pointing and blaming individuals, the type of behavior your describing, is classic dominant capitalist ideology, something that all flavors of the left are deeply skeptical of.
Both "radical" liberalism and rising right-wing extremism are different varieties of nihilism, stemming from the same root cause of a degradation in our overall material conditions and the breakdown of late capitalist society. Both are essentially empty systems of rhetoric with no underlying values that ultimately lead to a totalitarian way of thinking.
To reiterate, the thinking your describing is absolutely not "far left".
Liberals are not considered the "far left" and people on the far left dislike them as much as people on the right do.
This isn't a "no true Scotsman" issue either, there are clear distinctions between various left-wing ideologies and mainstream liberalism (radical or not). Finger pointing and blaming individuals, the type of behavior your describing, is classic dominant capitalist ideology, something that all flavors of the left are deeply skeptical of.
Both "radical" liberalism and rising right-wing extremism are different varieties of nihilism, stemming from the same root cause of a degradation in our overall material conditions and the breakdown of late capitalist society. Both are essentially empty systems of rhetoric with no underlying values that ultimately lead to a totalitarian way of thinking.
To reiterate, the thinking your describing is absolutely not "far left".
Political trials, formal and informal, against "class enemies" are typical of extremist left wing movements. See for example Maoist "struggle sessions", which seem nothing else than an in-person version of a twitter mob:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
Note that the targets of cancel culture are in the most proper sense "class enemies" since their sins are not directed against specific individuals but entire classes of people: blacks, women, transsexuals, etc.- and can be as vague as dismissive attitudes or generic antagonism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
Note that the targets of cancel culture are in the most proper sense "class enemies" since their sins are not directed against specific individuals but entire classes of people: blacks, women, transsexuals, etc.- and can be as vague as dismissive attitudes or generic antagonism.
> Liberals are not considered the "far left" and people on the far left dislike them as much as people on the right do.
Indeed. Graffiti in the wake of a recent riot read: "Liberals get the bullet too "
Indeed. Graffiti in the wake of a recent riot read: "Liberals get the bullet too "
> Twitter is super safe if you're on the far left
For now. There is a deliberate tactic on the left to become more and more extreme. A sentiment expressed today that's totally fine may not be fine tomorrow. It will be used against you. The left will turn on itself once it has made Conservatism illegal.
For now. There is a deliberate tactic on the left to become more and more extreme. A sentiment expressed today that's totally fine may not be fine tomorrow. It will be used against you. The left will turn on itself once it has made Conservatism illegal.
The right just tried to burn down the House in the US, murder the government, and install a dictator because it didn't accept that it lost a fair election.
Many on the right still can't, even now.
If you want your philosophy to remain legal, acting like this is a very bad thing and not something that can really be excused - for any reason - might be a good start.
Many on the right still can't, even now.
If you want your philosophy to remain legal, acting like this is a very bad thing and not something that can really be excused - for any reason - might be a good start.
I think another post hit the mark here but generalizing people into extreme groups is a real problem. I know many people on the “right” and “left” that basically only agree with half of what their chosen party says, or maybe they only agree with one issue that is very important to them. On the left it is usually abortion and the right it is usually economy. My point is that saying things like “many” is not all or even a majority. Taking the capitol building riots, even the people present there were incredibly diverse in their mindset. There was a group of a couple hundred that had bad intents and there were several thousand that were actively stopping others from causing damage or fighting the police. There are many videos of people pulling rioters away from breaking windows and shouting at them to stop. The big problem is that the peaceful group didn’t mix with the rioting group soon enough. Trump was having a rally not even close to the capitol building meanwhile this other group started storming the capital. I find it similar when people get angry at like a “Google” employee for saying some obviously idiotic things. Sure an employee represents the company in some capacity but for companies that have tens of thousands of employees, there is almost certainty that some will behave badly. Now take mentality that to the over 70 million Trump voters. Each has their own individual reason for voting for him and lumping them together is no different than saying all men or all women are the same, the ratio is about the equal to genders. This gets exacerbated by media companies who will take one example and call that out as if it is the rule. I can’t tell you how many articles and new shows that say “some say” and use one tweet saying that as evidence as if it is a majority held opinion or representative of a whole. In the BLM protests it was reasonable was assume a lot of the rioters were not protesters or not there for the protest but that same standard was dropped for those at the capital.
You're not going to convince many that symbolically property damage across the nation is of the same offense as storming the capitol and beating one of your own to death. The group that stormed the capital was also not ideologically diverse. They were running on a common emotion of hate. Sure, you had hundreds of useful idiots giving the bad actors cover but that's the whole point of being a useful idiot for the left/right/center. It provides an excuse for like minded to dismiss the extreme position but they still sat down with Fascists to eat a meal.
Property damage? I mean literally police stations and city halls were attacked across the US and many people did die in the protests, and cops were even killed at random in the name of BLM. Don’t try to stand on the grave of one individual officer in the case who volunteered to protect the building and reports still read his “injuries were unknown” and report it as if it was a murder. Officers die every day around the country from a traffic stop and somehow it is an “insurrection” when one dies in a crowd of hundreds of thousands of people. And to you that fault is all of those hundreds of thousands of people? Did anyone at your high school ever murder someone, does that make you a murderer because you all were not ideologically diverse and had the same education. It is prejudice to assign others blame by virtue of association. There was no hate by many people they simply wanted election integrity to be verified and allow investigation to occur.
You've lumped about 3 months worth of time into a single response as some kind of single metaphor to a single incident incited by a rally held by several political figures. You want to sit with Fascists and that's okay with me but don't tell me you don't stink mate. Every single person who went to that shit show knew what it was going to be about and anyone so blinded to not see it devolving into violence falls into the useful idiot camp.
Sure that was 3 months of very similar riots. Take any single one of them and it was as violent as the capitol protest. I guess you know exactly what everyone was thinking that went there? Even though the “leader” of the whole thing, Trump, said “be peaceful, don’t give them what they want, be peaceful.” Please tell me how fascism even relates to this conversation? Isn’t asking for election integrity the exact opposite of fascism?
We're not even existing in the same general reality of truth at this point so it doesn't make sense to continue talking past each other. Have a good evening and maybe buy some GME stock.
Really though I see fascism as something people actually fear is coming true. What are people afraid of?
I always suspected there's a little bit of survivorship bias (? not sure of the best term here) going on. If you haven't suffered the hoards, or had someone you know suffer them, you're likely to think some combination of "it only happens when it's justified" and "no one will care about little old me"
I've witnessed it happen to a colleague early on in my career. He posted how trivial it was to cause an IoT device to reset because they had a reset password only protected by hashing an English word that they changed every update. There are multiple security lapses there, and he didn't even mention the really scary ones, this one was almost silly.
Turns out the parent company of the IoT device and his parent company were the same, and calls got made, his post misunderstood by management, and he got told to find a new job somewhere else.
Still makes my blood boil, and I'd name names, but neither company exists anymore. It did teach me to be _very_ careful what I post online, even when I'm anonymous.
I've witnessed it happen to a colleague early on in my career. He posted how trivial it was to cause an IoT device to reset because they had a reset password only protected by hashing an English word that they changed every update. There are multiple security lapses there, and he didn't even mention the really scary ones, this one was almost silly.
Turns out the parent company of the IoT device and his parent company were the same, and calls got made, his post misunderstood by management, and he got told to find a new job somewhere else.
Still makes my blood boil, and I'd name names, but neither company exists anymore. It did teach me to be _very_ careful what I post online, even when I'm anonymous.
To be fair, sometimes things happen, and it can be good (I think JP said something like that). something like "never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake" - if people demonstrate their shittiness, help them.
It would just be your friend that got an (admittedly mandatory) wake-up call - other employees would too. The best remedy is just a totally neutral post/tweet detailing what happened, with no judgement at all - 3rd parties will get angry on your behalf, and a lack of initial anger will only motivate that moreso.
It would just be your friend that got an (admittedly mandatory) wake-up call - other employees would too. The best remedy is just a totally neutral post/tweet detailing what happened, with no judgement at all - 3rd parties will get angry on your behalf, and a lack of initial anger will only motivate that moreso.
If neither company exists, why not name names anyways?
Yeah, that sounds mostly really unlucky :(. I mean, anyone can understand that a company fires an employee that publicises a security weakness in a product instead of clearing it internally. However, when the employee doesn't understand that he is an "employee" of that company... Sounds like an unfortunate mistake.. you can be fired for those.
A bit of a tangent but, this is all the result of having people use their real names on the internet. I remember when there was a big push for people to create profiles tied to their real identities with the argument being that everyone would behave themselves if their real lives were connected to the things they did online. That argument is dead as discourse is now. Instead of well mannered discussion between opposing views we got media fuelled echo chambers that now extends right to the top offices of government along with political persecution by online mobs that high five each other as they destroy lives and careers. I don’t know what a good solution is.
There’s no solution because it’s not a technical problem. Something is broken in our culture.
[deleted]
The argument may be dead, but the powers that be are pushing hard to make online anonymity illegal and a thing of the past, precisely because they want the kind of mob mentality that happened to the literary agent mentioned in TGGF.
Haha I remember that argument. The thought was anonymity made people horrible to each other online. Turns out people are horrible to each other online regardless.
I’m not saying cancellation should be illegal or whatever, but that isn’t healthy. You can’t let a minority of extremists (and it is a minority) muzzle everyone. It turns over control of the culture to them and that’s extremely dangerous.
Never could see any positives from the "stream of consciousness" type of particpation in social media. I myself have gone farther and have never participated at all on Facebook, Twiter, et. al.
Closest thing I've ever had to a social media presence is here on HN, where I deliberately remain anonymous.
Closest thing I've ever had to a social media presence is here on HN, where I deliberately remain anonymous.
I actually like Reddit as well. You can remain pseudonymous there if you so choose and still have meaningful interactions with people. And (depending on the sub) people don't form mobs as easily as on Twitter/Facebook.
Social media without moderators was a really bad idea, as we learn now.
Social media without moderators was a really bad idea, as we learn now.
Blame the victims? If the majority are scared to publicly state their opinions, it's somehow normal that the ones that still do it get punished. They should just be more cautious what they post, right?
> I honestly don't know why people use "post what you're thinking" style social media at all at this point.
See also: https://www.socialcooling.com/
See also: https://www.socialcooling.com/
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Only use social-media as a read-only medium, or for marketing.
Anything you say there can, and will, be used against you in the court of public opinion, FOREVER.
On other sites, such as HN and reddit, retire your username after a few weeks / months. Your internet points don't matter.
Only use social-media as a read-only medium, or for marketing.
Anything you say there can, and will, be used against you in the court of public opinion, FOREVER.
On other sites, such as HN and reddit, retire your username after a few weeks / months. Your internet points don't matter.
I was lucky I became "self aware" in that sense. Granted I never posted anything that attacked people but I did clean up my FB that I haven't used for years to post/browse. Deleting stuff, hiding images, etc...
Also try not to be doxable in general but sucks like when YT forces you to use your actual name in comments otherwise changing it would change it in email. Can make another account too. At least the comments I don't think are indexed publicly.
That's always fun finding dumb things you posted online as a kid.
Also try not to be doxable in general but sucks like when YT forces you to use your actual name in comments otherwise changing it would change it in email. Can make another account too. At least the comments I don't think are indexed publicly.
That's always fun finding dumb things you posted online as a kid.
> That's always fun finding dumb things you posted online as a kid.
The older I get, the more I understand the push for a right to be forgotten. I wish that (most?) public sites had some kind of filter where things disappeared. There is no reason why comments made as a kid should follow you forever. Or, if not entirely removed, then maybe the authorship masked.
I mean, if bad decisions fall off your credit report after 7 years, why shouldn’t the stupid tweet you posted 7 years ago? This is especially true for accounts where the person was under 18 at the time.
The older I get, the more I understand the push for a right to be forgotten. I wish that (most?) public sites had some kind of filter where things disappeared. There is no reason why comments made as a kid should follow you forever. Or, if not entirely removed, then maybe the authorship masked.
I mean, if bad decisions fall off your credit report after 7 years, why shouldn’t the stupid tweet you posted 7 years ago? This is especially true for accounts where the person was under 18 at the time.
> some kind of filter where things disappeared
Well, people can delete ill-advised tweets, but it doesn't matter - if somebody else screen-shotted it, they can hang on to the screenshot for as long as they like and use it against you when you run for congress some day.
Well, people can delete ill-advised tweets, but it doesn't matter - if somebody else screen-shotted it, they can hang on to the screenshot for as long as they like and use it against you when you run for congress some day.
> dumb things you posted online as a kid
I'm very, very thankful that the internet didn't exist when I was a kid. And am very worried for my own children because it did when they were - I've been counseling them since they were old enough to use a computer that whatever they write will be there forever.
I'm very, very thankful that the internet didn't exist when I was a kid. And am very worried for my own children because it did when they were - I've been counseling them since they were old enough to use a computer that whatever they write will be there forever.
I post about music on my Twitter. Tech stuff here. Instagram for my hobby photography. Facebook itself is long gone. And all for the reasons you’ve stated. I use none of them particularly often.
I’m as left as they come, but I don’t trust that the winds won’t change or I will make a stupid decision, and my future is too important to risk that. And honestly I’m not missing much. If I want to talk politics, I do it with my friends over a beer.
I’m as left as they come, but I don’t trust that the winds won’t change or I will make a stupid decision, and my future is too important to risk that. And honestly I’m not missing much. If I want to talk politics, I do it with my friends over a beer.
> If I want to talk politics, I do it with my friends over a beer.
As a former Soviet citizen, this is particularly funny to me. Where the safest place for political discussion was at home, in the kitchen, with vodka and couple of good friends. It was part of Soviet culture back then.
As a former Soviet citizen, this is particularly funny to me. Where the safest place for political discussion was at home, in the kitchen, with vodka and couple of good friends. It was part of Soviet culture back then.
Even then you could still end up in the gulag. My wife's great grandfather spent years in work camps because his drinking "friends" turned him in for expressing "unfavourable opinions about Stalin".
While not anywhere nearly that extreme, it makes me nervous that we're moving in that direction culturally (where it's socially acceptable and encouraged to turn someone in for having the "wrong" thoughts).
While not anywhere nearly that extreme, it makes me nervous that we're moving in that direction culturally (where it's socially acceptable and encouraged to turn someone in for having the "wrong" thoughts).
Victorians in Australia have been arrested for contemplating protest, and some of those originated from via "tips." It's not a giant leap.
This is in no way an endorsement of the Soviet Union but it does need to be noted that the Soviet Union was in most parts of it's history, far more moderate than the Soviet Union under Stalin, Stalin has a higher body count than Hitler. Now in saying that, the Soviet Union was never a bastion of enlightenment era liberalism, free thought or personal freedoms. I agree it's not a end goal we should be striving for.
Interestingly the same could've been said for China post-Deng, pre-Pooh.
Technically; people can't post to thedonald.win either. It has been closed down too.
Only technically. They moved to another domain to dodge the FBI investigation post-Capitol. It's just a rebrand.
it moved to patriots.win and there's apparently an even crazier group at greatawakening.win
>The most reasonable people know enough not to risk their livelihoods
This is literal victim blaming. US culture leaders have deep and worsening problems that need to be discussed openly.
This is literal victim blaming. US culture leaders have deep and worsening problems that need to be discussed openly.
It's worth noting that Frederick's employees quit -- her statements on twitter angered her staff so much they no longer wished to associate with her.
That's not cancel culture. That's common sense. Don't make your coworkers so angry that they'd rather be jobless than spend time in your presence.
The freedom of speech isn't the freedom to speak without consequences. Frederick spoke her mind in a public square, and signed her name to those statements, and other people freely chose not to associate themselves with her. That's bound to happen from time to time. It's a free country.
That's not cancel culture. That's common sense. Don't make your coworkers so angry that they'd rather be jobless than spend time in your presence.
The freedom of speech isn't the freedom to speak without consequences. Frederick spoke her mind in a public square, and signed her name to those statements, and other people freely chose not to associate themselves with her. That's bound to happen from time to time. It's a free country.
This line of reasoning breaks down whenever a population is experiencing any form of mass hysteria, and I think there's a reasonable argument that the US is very much in the midst of such a phenomenon right now. Indeed, that was the point of the example being provided by the poster you replied to: her staff quit because they acted based on a hysterical rather than rational analysis of the situation. They didn't break a law by quitting, but that doesn't mean this is something to take lightly or ignore. Mass hysteria is a very, very dangerous path to go down -- it's not something to brush off.
I don't really see where the mass or the hysteria is. It's an individual business parting with an employee because the views shared in public are likely going to harm the business.
Happens probably every day somewhere, why has this even become noteworthy?
Happens probably every day somewhere, why has this even become noteworthy?
I downvoted you because I am very confident you are acting in bad faith. Why is it notable? Because “Some rioters crashed a van through a gas station and I called the police” being a “view” that will “harm the business” is a novel take. I understand the logic behind it. I also know that the most fervent believers in that logic understand it is provocative and radical relative to the mainstream.
It's not a novel take at all, people have been fired for random takes that blew into shitstorms countless of times. You seem to be confused about my post, I'm not passing any judgement here in the sense of approving with the firing, I'm saying, if you make a post on some political event and you create some sort of backlash, even if you didn't do anything wrong, but you're being perceived that way, your place of work may let you go.
That's unfair but it's not a sign of hysteria, other than for the general shittiness of viral internet communication.
That's unfair but it's not a sign of hysteria, other than for the general shittiness of viral internet communication.
The person in question wasn't fired for "random takes" but rather being seen in the vicinity of services that have been seen in the vicinity of people making decidedly non-random takes on political matters. And now she, perhaps correctly, believes she is the victim of religious and political persecution.
As for not being mass hysteria, from the outside looking in it's clearly exactly that. Firing someone because of a mobile app they have installed, when that app was briefly at the top of the app store, is ludicrous and wrong.
The US left appear to be descendeding into full bore anti-conservative hysteria. This is exceptionally dangerous because when the left has taken power in the past with that kind of mentality it ended up in bloodshed on massive scales. That must not happen to America.
As for not being mass hysteria, from the outside looking in it's clearly exactly that. Firing someone because of a mobile app they have installed, when that app was briefly at the top of the app store, is ludicrous and wrong.
The US left appear to be descendeding into full bore anti-conservative hysteria. This is exceptionally dangerous because when the left has taken power in the past with that kind of mentality it ended up in bloodshed on massive scales. That must not happen to America.
> The US left appear to be descendeding into full bore anti-conservative hysteria. This is exceptionally dangerous because when the left has taken power in the past with that kind of mentality it ended up in bloodshed on massive scales. That must not happen to America.
I wouldn't single out any particular faction on this to be honest. The Obama birther movement purportedly started in 2004 and Trump himself peddled the narrative that Obama wasn't a US Citizen. There was also the general narrative that Obama was the "Anti-Christ" and a secret Muslim.
Now you have a portion of the GOP who believe Democrats and "Hollywood elite" are harvesting children's adrenochromes in a massive paedophile ring.
Any argument that hysteria is the domain of one party is not based in fact.
I wouldn't single out any particular faction on this to be honest. The Obama birther movement purportedly started in 2004 and Trump himself peddled the narrative that Obama wasn't a US Citizen. There was also the general narrative that Obama was the "Anti-Christ" and a secret Muslim.
Now you have a portion of the GOP who believe Democrats and "Hollywood elite" are harvesting children's adrenochromes in a massive paedophile ring.
Any argument that hysteria is the domain of one party is not based in fact.
Obama birtherism was dumb but never took over swathes of institutions like this. Even Trump abandoned it before he became President.
What we're seeing now is not merely a set of hysterical beliefs, but widespread pulling on the levers of power on the basis of them. That seems pretty new.
What we're seeing now is not merely a set of hysterical beliefs, but widespread pulling on the levers of power on the basis of them. That seems pretty new.
> The US left appear to be descendeding into full bore anti-conservative hysteria.
The corporate actors involved here are nowhere near the left, they are closer to the center-right; the problem the Trumpist faction is facing isn’t that the Left doesn’t like them, its that they’ve earned the firm enmity of the centrist factions that, even when they opposed conservatives them on certain issues, kept good relations with them because they knew the next day they might need them as allies against the Left. And, beyond that, they’ve also lost a substantial minority of the Right; the various long-time and recent Republican figures that have come out in opposition to the Trumpist faction – and not just in the usual intraparty opposition sense but to the extent of either making a dramatic exit from the Party and/or advocating for the defeat of not only its Presidential candidate but of its downballot candidates as long as the Party adheres to Trumpism is telling.
Shouting about the Left is, I’m sure, cathartic, but it is also very much irrelevant to what is going on here. That’s not where the change that is driving outcomes comes from.
The corporate actors involved here are nowhere near the left, they are closer to the center-right; the problem the Trumpist faction is facing isn’t that the Left doesn’t like them, its that they’ve earned the firm enmity of the centrist factions that, even when they opposed conservatives them on certain issues, kept good relations with them because they knew the next day they might need them as allies against the Left. And, beyond that, they’ve also lost a substantial minority of the Right; the various long-time and recent Republican figures that have come out in opposition to the Trumpist faction – and not just in the usual intraparty opposition sense but to the extent of either making a dramatic exit from the Party and/or advocating for the defeat of not only its Presidential candidate but of its downballot candidates as long as the Party adheres to Trumpism is telling.
Shouting about the Left is, I’m sure, cathartic, but it is also very much irrelevant to what is going on here. That’s not where the change that is driving outcomes comes from.
That's disagreement, not enmity. Conflating the two is hysteria.
No it’s not just the “the Trumpists” versus everyone else. Almost all of these incidents involve conduct which nobody except a small fraction of the progressive left finds problematic. The mainstream left goes along because they’re afraid of being lumped in with “Trumpists.”
I expect this to change once Trump is gone and mainstream liberals aren’t so terrified of being compared to him.
I expect this to change once Trump is gone and mainstream liberals aren’t so terrified of being compared to him.
As a centrist myself I disagree with the premise that centrists take issue with Trump.
I personally take issue with his heavy-handed approach to the George Floyd protests, but I consider George Bush Jr to be by far the worse president between the two. He's mostly just an arrogant asshole.
The left's response to him however... And I've spoken with many many other centrists online who agree with me so it's not clear to me why you think the centrists are anything but just silent so they don't get swept up in the hysteria (which is where I've been at for years now, which is why I've never been on Twitter, instagram, etc. Was on FB briefly and promptly left it long before it got popular to do so).
I personally take issue with his heavy-handed approach to the George Floyd protests, but I consider George Bush Jr to be by far the worse president between the two. He's mostly just an arrogant asshole.
The left's response to him however... And I've spoken with many many other centrists online who agree with me so it's not clear to me why you think the centrists are anything but just silent so they don't get swept up in the hysteria (which is where I've been at for years now, which is why I've never been on Twitter, instagram, etc. Was on FB briefly and promptly left it long before it got popular to do so).
Not in countries with functioning labor law.
There is no chance they would have quit were there no hubub about it. Zero.
They quit likely because they are in a rep-based business and their boss is stained.
The 'mass outrage' is to some extent, outrage on them by virtue of trickle down or association.
The public outrage adds emotional momentum to it.
That the woman did something slightly questionable makes it one of the better examples of cancel culture, because were she to have done truly noting remotely wrong, then none of the actions would have any justification at all. Because there's a shade of possibly bad acting, we see the disproportional response.
They quit likely because they are in a rep-based business and their boss is stained.
The 'mass outrage' is to some extent, outrage on them by virtue of trickle down or association.
The public outrage adds emotional momentum to it.
That the woman did something slightly questionable makes it one of the better examples of cancel culture, because were she to have done truly noting remotely wrong, then none of the actions would have any justification at all. Because there's a shade of possibly bad acting, we see the disproportional response.
What was the questionable decision?
Joining a website where nasty people make comments.
Imagine if every redditor was fired or or had their employees quit because of the absolutely horrific things some other users post there.
Imagine if every redditor was fired or or had their employees quit because of the absolutely horrific things some other users post there.
You know, there are people who think HN is one of those websites. Like, squarely in the left-wing (I'm not saying mainstream liberals think that), but it's definitely a thing.
Taking a snap of a worker on the train eating their sandwich an posting to Twitter was obviously a questionable thing to do at minimum.
> where is the hysteria
The hysteria is literally facing HARM from opinions.
Why is death threats and intolerance noteworthy? Maybe because intolerance, hate, bigotry and threats of violence should always be noteworthy? especially when concerned with those who claim to be tolerant?
The hysteria is literally facing HARM from opinions.
Why is death threats and intolerance noteworthy? Maybe because intolerance, hate, bigotry and threats of violence should always be noteworthy? especially when concerned with those who claim to be tolerant?
There seems to be mass hysteria about the claimed "mass hysteria", at least when it relates to private business or individuals cutting ties with someone over their actions and statements as opposed to online harassment.
Over the perception of their actions, not their actual actions.
Nobody anywhere would care a single bit were there not mass hysteria.
Also it's not necessarily harassment to call out people if they are not doing their jobs. It's just very (almost pathetically) petty.
Nobody anywhere would care a single bit were there not mass hysteria.
Also it's not necessarily harassment to call out people if they are not doing their jobs. It's just very (almost pathetically) petty.
>Over the perception of their actions, not their actual actions.
Trying to discuss in good faith here so hopefully this doesn't garner venom: it doesn't feel novel to be fired or quit over public perception of actions or statements - all my corporate employers since the onset of social media have had disclaimers to not enter the public discourse in such a way that might cause negative publicity for them.
>Nobody anywhere would care a single bit were there not mass hysteria.
This is what my original comment was getting at: claims of 'mass hysteria' come off as something like a conspiracy against a specific group or unfairly targeted wrong-think, which feels like a much more exciting answer than the mundane reality. It seems hysterical in itself to not just assume we're in a politically polarized climate and certain topics of discourse easily earn you close friends and/or committed enemies - something that can make any group dynamic fall apart.
>Also it's not necessarily harassment to call out people if they are not doing their jobs. It's just very (almost pathetically) petty.
Entirely agree! I do think social media has had a tendency to allow people to indulge in their worst sides without much consequence in the case of doxxing and, well, harassment by mass-reaching out to personal lines of contact. That's really distinct in my eyes from filing a complaint to their public employer for the public perception of their public statements.
Trying to discuss in good faith here so hopefully this doesn't garner venom: it doesn't feel novel to be fired or quit over public perception of actions or statements - all my corporate employers since the onset of social media have had disclaimers to not enter the public discourse in such a way that might cause negative publicity for them.
>Nobody anywhere would care a single bit were there not mass hysteria.
This is what my original comment was getting at: claims of 'mass hysteria' come off as something like a conspiracy against a specific group or unfairly targeted wrong-think, which feels like a much more exciting answer than the mundane reality. It seems hysterical in itself to not just assume we're in a politically polarized climate and certain topics of discourse easily earn you close friends and/or committed enemies - something that can make any group dynamic fall apart.
>Also it's not necessarily harassment to call out people if they are not doing their jobs. It's just very (almost pathetically) petty.
Entirely agree! I do think social media has had a tendency to allow people to indulge in their worst sides without much consequence in the case of doxxing and, well, harassment by mass-reaching out to personal lines of contact. That's really distinct in my eyes from filing a complaint to their public employer for the public perception of their public statements.
So this is a good comment - however the term 'hysteria' may not be correct, I suggest that the reaction is ultimately hysterical to the point of overreaction.
I think frankly it's driven a small group of unimportant people, causing more serious forces to act out of fear or opportunity, which snowballs into overreaction.
A 'fear' moves over a group of people causing weird effects.
Maybe we need a term for this - but how do we have 'serious consequences' out of essentially 'inconsequential acts'?
It's leveraged consistently by those that want to use 'every little interaction' as 'proof' of their particular ideology.
It's just too much, it's wearing on my otherwise sympathetic view of people.
I think frankly it's driven a small group of unimportant people, causing more serious forces to act out of fear or opportunity, which snowballs into overreaction.
A 'fear' moves over a group of people causing weird effects.
Maybe we need a term for this - but how do we have 'serious consequences' out of essentially 'inconsequential acts'?
It's leveraged consistently by those that want to use 'every little interaction' as 'proof' of their particular ideology.
It's just too much, it's wearing on my otherwise sympathetic view of people.
The reason for hysteria isn't polarization alone, but also the left has a mission and is compelled to use everything to complete it, including such hysteric campaigns. Maybe it's not truly hysteria, but it looks, walk and talks like one.
Those quitting people themselves describe their quitting as punishment of bad people to make the world better, not to save business. Quit for business harm happens the other way around: when management fires an employee who started a controversy.
> The freedom of speech isn't the freedom to speak without consequences
People in East Germany were free to speak, they just got consequences.
Freedom of speech in the US means that the government can't punish you for saying something, except in situations where they can (incitement, copyright, libel, contempt of court, etc)
People in East Germany were free to speak, they just got consequences.
Freedom of speech in the US means that the government can't punish you for saying something, except in situations where they can (incitement, copyright, libel, contempt of court, etc)
Freedom of Speech in the US is a tenet and a philosophy.
What you're referring to is called a constitutional amendment, which also gets pulled under the umbrella term 'Freedom of Speech' because it's a practical implementation of the ideal.
This idea that it's defensible to actively work against the ideals of Freedom of Speech because of a constitutional amendment just doesn't fly. It would be akin to me claiming it isn't immoral to cheat on my spouse because there are laws requiring lawyers to avoid breaching the trust of their clients and therefore trust isn't anything people should consider unless they're lawyers.
What you're referring to is called a constitutional amendment, which also gets pulled under the umbrella term 'Freedom of Speech' because it's a practical implementation of the ideal.
This idea that it's defensible to actively work against the ideals of Freedom of Speech because of a constitutional amendment just doesn't fly. It would be akin to me claiming it isn't immoral to cheat on my spouse because there are laws requiring lawyers to avoid breaching the trust of their clients and therefore trust isn't anything people should consider unless they're lawyers.
"It's a free country" doesn't really add much to the discussion. No-one is saying her employees should be legally forced to stay with the company.
What is being said, however, is that we should reverse this spiralling cultural trend of thinking it's OK to rail-road/strong-arm those not on your "side".
It's a base, mob instinct that has caused riots, factionalism, witch hunts and genocide all throughout human history. It's arguably responsible for a lot of the damage in US society in recent years
I mean, her employees quit because she posted on Twitter that a business was being looted and someone should call the police (I believe, the original tweet seems to have been deleted). Resigning over something so innocuous surely points to a disturbingly reductionist world view, and that path leads only to violence.
What is being said, however, is that we should reverse this spiralling cultural trend of thinking it's OK to rail-road/strong-arm those not on your "side".
It's a base, mob instinct that has caused riots, factionalism, witch hunts and genocide all throughout human history. It's arguably responsible for a lot of the damage in US society in recent years
I mean, her employees quit because she posted on Twitter that a business was being looted and someone should call the police (I believe, the original tweet seems to have been deleted). Resigning over something so innocuous surely points to a disturbingly reductionist world view, and that path leads only to violence.
The situation has escalated because normal, rational, calm politics has completely failed to deliver.
Police shoot someone dead. There should, at the very least, be a reliable public inquiry into each one of these incidents. We could treat it as an air accident or a murder inquiry, either would work; but instead, there is nothing. Over the years, the anger about being exposed to the risk of being shot dead without consequences boils over, and suddenly there is fighting in the streets and on Twitter. The way to "reverse the trend" is for justice to be seen to be done within the system, so people don't go outside the system. After all, there's no way to end calls for people to be fired without infringing free speech.
Is calling the police on somebody making a death threat? That's how SWATting came to be a problem, after all.
Police shoot someone dead. There should, at the very least, be a reliable public inquiry into each one of these incidents. We could treat it as an air accident or a murder inquiry, either would work; but instead, there is nothing. Over the years, the anger about being exposed to the risk of being shot dead without consequences boils over, and suddenly there is fighting in the streets and on Twitter. The way to "reverse the trend" is for justice to be seen to be done within the system, so people don't go outside the system. After all, there's no way to end calls for people to be fired without infringing free speech.
Is calling the police on somebody making a death threat? That's how SWATting came to be a problem, after all.
Completely different. Calling police with a false report of an extremely violent crime is hugely different from calling police on an actually crime.
And declaring war on policing is a horrific response to the (huge) problem of under 0.1% of interactions having inexcusably terrible outcomes. Lack of policing causes far more problems than policing. And if you disagree with that, do you deserve to lose your job for your good faith belief? The anti-policing extremists hurt the people they intend to help. The vast majority of Black communities don't want to cancel the current police as a whole, they want better police.
And declaring war on policing is a horrific response to the (huge) problem of under 0.1% of interactions having inexcusably terrible outcomes. Lack of policing causes far more problems than policing. And if you disagree with that, do you deserve to lose your job for your good faith belief? The anti-policing extremists hurt the people they intend to help. The vast majority of Black communities don't want to cancel the current police as a whole, they want better police.
> It's a base, mob instinct that has caused riots, factionalism, witch hunts and genocide all throughout human history
This is it. In the last 10 years or so mob instinct has shown up in many ways - in looting stores, in doxing people and cancelling people who say the wrong things, in trying to overthrow governments, or just simple pile-ons. In part this has been fanned by big tech, but not entirely
The trick is tackling the causes of the creation of the mobs. "You're either with us or against us" is not new - Clinton and Bush were using it 20 years ago, but Cicero used it in Rome and it's in the bible. Big Tech is certainly a key part of the creation and expanse as it connects people, and people are encouraged to "pick a side". In traditional discourse what you'd say to your sportsmates up the pub could be a very different conversation to what you say to your collegues at an awayday. With social media, what you say to one, you say to all -- walking between worlds is difficult.
You might agree with group A on one thing (say housing), and group B on another thing (say BLM), and group C on another thing (say economy), but if those don't all align with your side, you won't fit in.
This is it. In the last 10 years or so mob instinct has shown up in many ways - in looting stores, in doxing people and cancelling people who say the wrong things, in trying to overthrow governments, or just simple pile-ons. In part this has been fanned by big tech, but not entirely
The trick is tackling the causes of the creation of the mobs. "You're either with us or against us" is not new - Clinton and Bush were using it 20 years ago, but Cicero used it in Rome and it's in the bible. Big Tech is certainly a key part of the creation and expanse as it connects people, and people are encouraged to "pick a side". In traditional discourse what you'd say to your sportsmates up the pub could be a very different conversation to what you say to your collegues at an awayday. With social media, what you say to one, you say to all -- walking between worlds is difficult.
You might agree with group A on one thing (say housing), and group B on another thing (say BLM), and group C on another thing (say economy), but if those don't all align with your side, you won't fit in.
I think trying to stop what causes mobs can be noble but will be done in vain, validate people’s ideas since they are now being blocked and it also has the ability to be abused. Media sites spent months blocking, banning, demonetizing, and posting disputes about election fraud but none the less there were still riots at the capital building. I like to think of all these websites as a search engine and so will use Google as an example. If Google blocks searches for illegal activity does it stop that illegal activity? No. Does it even lessen that activity? No. In my opinion is hides it which is actually what those committing illegal acts want. They may not know they want it, but it literally protects them from being found by the ones who can stand up to them, sometimes the police. Let’s say you have a person who makes a threat towards another person and that is blocked before it’s posted. Now, the person who was threatened has no idea they were ever threatened. That person is unable to report to the police the treat and has no evidence of the threat. Not only can they not prepare to protect themselves or defend themselves but their evidence is gone and the person making the threats has no consequences. Google and others do turn over threats to the FBI but let’s be honest they don’t have the time or man power to investigate every threat on the internet. So who does? Websites don’t, but the people who are being threatened do. They need to know. This example obviously doesn’t apply as well to mob attacks, but I think the solution is the same. You need transparency and more visibility to these things not less. You literally need police for the internet, not just moderators. Stop the activity where it becomes illegal but not with hiding it, find a way to enforce that through the government with real world consequences, not through moderation of a narrative.
I'm thinking more tackling the causes that feeds people into mobs, the need of people to effectively wear gang shirts because of the lack of compartmentalisation of communication caused by non-anonymous online conversations
Another for your list: Jordanian-American woman gets her publishing deal canceled for tweeting about a rude DC Metro employee, because the Metro employee was black.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/05/11/dc-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/05/11/dc-...
I’m very much against people being fired for their social media posts (unless we’re crossing way over a line that delves into calls for violence or is doing something illegal), but that situation was a bit more complicated. That author, who was PR professional and verified on Twitter, was using her account and her blue-checkmark to shame a worker on a train for eating on her break. She literally tried to get that employee fired and put their face all over the internet. So forgive me if I don’t weep for someone being snitched on on social media when they were snitching themselves and using their position (brands and places like the transit authority take complaints from people with blue checks much more seriously and blue checks absolutely know this) to try to get someone fired for daring to break a rule of eating on a train. Come on now. Her losing her book contract with a publisher no one has ever heard of seems almost fitting.
ETA: Since then, she’s also been able to leverage that experience into redemption/victimhood profiles on Good Morning America and an article in Elle UK. Both opportunities I guarantee she never would have had with her debut novel, so she’s fine.
ETA: Since then, she’s also been able to leverage that experience into redemption/victimhood profiles on Good Morning America and an article in Elle UK. Both opportunities I guarantee she never would have had with her debut novel, so she’s fine.
You’ve gone and assumed the worst. “Trying to get that employee fired?” I just don’t see it. Anyway, the Metro employees union would never go for it.
The no-eating rule is a fairly big deal on Metro. A twelve-year-old girl was famously arrested for eating a single French fry [0], in a case (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority) that went all the way to the U.S. Court of Appeals, where the arrest was upheld. A teenager was arrested in 2016 for carrying chips and snacks into a Metro station [1]. If I saw an employee flouting this rule, I’d be indignant too. I wouldn’t have posted a photo of the person, but the kind of vitriol, racism, and naked hate this novelist faced in response to her tweet was totally unwarranted. The potential for negative consequences on the part of the Metro employee was greatly exaggerated.
[0] https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94999&page=1
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/met...
The no-eating rule is a fairly big deal on Metro. A twelve-year-old girl was famously arrested for eating a single French fry [0], in a case (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority) that went all the way to the U.S. Court of Appeals, where the arrest was upheld. A teenager was arrested in 2016 for carrying chips and snacks into a Metro station [1]. If I saw an employee flouting this rule, I’d be indignant too. I wouldn’t have posted a photo of the person, but the kind of vitriol, racism, and naked hate this novelist faced in response to her tweet was totally unwarranted. The potential for negative consequences on the part of the Metro employee was greatly exaggerated.
[0] https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94999&page=1
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/met...
As someone who's never been on the DC metro, my first reaction to this story was that it's pretty unreasonable to post an employee's photo to Twitter just because they ate on the train. While we can't say for sure that they wanted to get the employee fired, their intent was clearly for them to be held accountable in some way by their employer for this infraction.
That said, if it's true that metro passengers have effectively been harassed and abused and arrested for years over this no-eating rule, then I can see how it would be more offensive to see an employee breaking it publicly, and this person's reaction makes more sense to me.
That said, if it's true that metro passengers have effectively been harassed and abused and arrested for years over this no-eating rule, then I can see how it would be more offensive to see an employee breaking it publicly, and this person's reaction makes more sense to me.
I've seen this interesting behavior in other contexts. There is a stupid rule that nobody likes. People make an effort to follow it despite hating it. When they see someone breaking the rule they feel that it's very unfair because of the effort they are making, so they report it to make it fairer. Either everyone should follow the rule or it shouldn't exist.
But in doing so they have become what they hated. They are now actively helping maintain and rooting for the stupid rule instead of fighting against it.
But in doing so they have become what they hated. They are now actively helping maintain and rooting for the stupid rule instead of fighting against it.
We all follow rules we don't agree with; that is part of the social contract. Selective enforcement of rules is one of the biggest threats to those who behave lawfully.
I see no compromise of principle in people who maintain and enforce stupid rules they disagree with. The most honest response is to argue for and support sensible rules, not to turn a blind eye.
I'm not saying that I think it is a good idea to follow bad rules - but people who disagree with rules and follow them anyway on solid moral footing and should reasonably expect others to do the same.
I see no compromise of principle in people who maintain and enforce stupid rules they disagree with. The most honest response is to argue for and support sensible rules, not to turn a blind eye.
I'm not saying that I think it is a good idea to follow bad rules - but people who disagree with rules and follow them anyway on solid moral footing and should reasonably expect others to do the same.
>We all follow rules we don't agree with; that is part of the social contract
it's been my experience that people generally don't follow rules they disagree with, unless they are afraid of the consequences. As such, seeing someone breaking the rule who is also someone in power over them with ability to enforce the rule can be especially galling.
it's been my experience that people generally don't follow rules they disagree with, unless they are afraid of the consequences. As such, seeing someone breaking the rule who is also someone in power over them with ability to enforce the rule can be especially galling.
Narcing on your neighbor for building an unpermitted shed because you feel like a chump for pulling permits when the reality is you both could have gotten away without permits is very different from narcing on somebody who is only getting away with it because they have some special status with the organization responsible for the rule.
I’m not defending the vitriol or racist and toxic remarks she received; I’m saying she was using her position as a blue checkmark to publicly shame someone and to try to get them fired. And as a self-described social media and communications expert, she should have known that using her position of power to shame/snitch on someone could carry consequences. She could have reported it privately, but she chose to use her platform that included her social status (most brands and orgs like the metro use CRMs to filter/prioritize responses from verified users, something someone who claims to be a social media strategist would know) to be a narc instead.
Moreover, the Metro had been ordered to cease citing people for jumping fares or eating on the train in 2019. I appreciate the author may not have known that. She still had no reason to use her clout to publish a photo of the employee and call her her to be punished. She was literally snitching someone and then cried tears of sorrow when she was snitched on back. I’m really struggling to garner sympathy in this particular case, although again, I don’t defend or condone the hate she received in return.
She also sued the publisher (an extremely small outfit with two employees) over canceling her book and they wound up publishing it anyway out of fear of litigation. She also tried to sue the distributor (Rare Bird, which is also small), who she didn’t have a contract with (these were the people that commented publicly they wouldn’t distribute it), but wound up dropping the case. I’m not trying to drag her for having a book deal with a boutique imprint, I just think it’s important to realize that this wasn’t Hachette or Simon & Schuster, this was an imprint with two employees.
And she then leveraged her experience to get positive international coverage/redemption arc. And you know what, if GMA and Elle UK want to buy into her narrative, kudos to her for selling it. But it really goes against the idea that her life was ruined, when again, she was able to place sympathetic stories about herself with Hearst (Elle UK) and ABC News (GMA).
Moreover, the Metro had been ordered to cease citing people for jumping fares or eating on the train in 2019. I appreciate the author may not have known that. She still had no reason to use her clout to publish a photo of the employee and call her her to be punished. She was literally snitching someone and then cried tears of sorrow when she was snitched on back. I’m really struggling to garner sympathy in this particular case, although again, I don’t defend or condone the hate she received in return.
She also sued the publisher (an extremely small outfit with two employees) over canceling her book and they wound up publishing it anyway out of fear of litigation. She also tried to sue the distributor (Rare Bird, which is also small), who she didn’t have a contract with (these were the people that commented publicly they wouldn’t distribute it), but wound up dropping the case. I’m not trying to drag her for having a book deal with a boutique imprint, I just think it’s important to realize that this wasn’t Hachette or Simon & Schuster, this was an imprint with two employees.
And she then leveraged her experience to get positive international coverage/redemption arc. And you know what, if GMA and Elle UK want to buy into her narrative, kudos to her for selling it. But it really goes against the idea that her life was ruined, when again, she was able to place sympathetic stories about herself with Hearst (Elle UK) and ABC News (GMA).
> She could have reported it privately, but she chose to use her platform that included her social status ... to be a narc instead.
Reporting it privately is still "narcing", isn't it? You're saying she'd have been ok if she kept her anonymity while doing the snitching that the twitter mob seeks to "cancel" people for? Well sure.
Reporting it privately is still "narcing", isn't it? You're saying she'd have been ok if she kept her anonymity while doing the snitching that the twitter mob seeks to "cancel" people for? Well sure.
There's a very substantial different between privately reporting someone, and publicly shaming someone for a behaviour, which has potentially far more extensive consequences, including putting additional pressure on the employer to act harshly.
It's perfectly reasonable to think one or both is wrong while still thinking one is far worse than the other.
It's perfectly reasonable to think one or both is wrong while still thinking one is far worse than the other.
Attempting to rile a Twitter mob is quite a bit different to reporting something to the authorities who should be the ones to act on something.
The adoption of “no snitching” culture well outside of its original contexts confuses me somewhat, but also in this case, how is this a situation someone should even concern themselves with? The entire thing is baffling to me: the original tweet, the Twitter mob against herself and firing afterward. Just seems out of this world.
The adoption of “no snitching” culture well outside of its original contexts confuses me somewhat, but also in this case, how is this a situation someone should even concern themselves with? The entire thing is baffling to me: the original tweet, the Twitter mob against herself and firing afterward. Just seems out of this world.
> And as a self-described social media and communications expert, she should have known that using her position of power to shame/snitch on someone could carry consequences.
Exactly. She knew better and was sophisticated enough to discern what was proportionate to the situation.
To be fair, the DC metro is among the cleanest in the NE USA. It's not North Korea clean, but it's far better than NYC and Philly. The reason it's clean is because the system does a decent job of policing the trains and hires enough people to keep it clean.
I've seen people eat entire large pizzas on NY subways, I've seen people eat massive wet smelly hoagies in Philly and deliberately plop a handful of the onions on the floor of the train like it was nothing. I can at least understand her outrage, but she could have handled it differently.
Maybe she took the "if you see something, say something" directive a bit too seriously?
Exactly. She knew better and was sophisticated enough to discern what was proportionate to the situation.
To be fair, the DC metro is among the cleanest in the NE USA. It's not North Korea clean, but it's far better than NYC and Philly. The reason it's clean is because the system does a decent job of policing the trains and hires enough people to keep it clean.
I've seen people eat entire large pizzas on NY subways, I've seen people eat massive wet smelly hoagies in Philly and deliberately plop a handful of the onions on the floor of the train like it was nothing. I can at least understand her outrage, but she could have handled it differently.
Maybe she took the "if you see something, say something" directive a bit too seriously?
[deleted]
As a regular user of the DC metro for about five years, I can say that rule is often enough ignored. Overall the system is impressively clean and people generally do not eat or drink on the trains, but hop on after like 9pm and it’s a very different story.
As for “vitriol, racism, and naked hate”, is that not just standard stuff on social media? Any tweet that goes viral for better or worse will get it.
As for “vitriol, racism, and naked hate”, is that not just standard stuff on social media? Any tweet that goes viral for better or worse will get it.
You reap what you sow. Her shitty behavior prompted a shitty response.
I couldn't care less about how strict the rule is, highlighting your disagreement with it by shitting on the little guy isn't a good look.
I couldn't care less about how strict the rule is, highlighting your disagreement with it by shitting on the little guy isn't a good look.
Thanks for this, it's this reason why I find it hard to believe people's summaries as they rarely tell the complete picture, and that itself is dangerous.
In this case, the original post didn't pass the sniff test to me. If I tweeted:
"Hey $operator, the person manning the gate at the station at James Street this morning was really rude, yelling at people and telling them to f-off"
I can't see any situation where the skin color of that person would come into it, so how would it be possible to get someone fired "because they're black" when that information isn't even made available.
In this case, the original post didn't pass the sniff test to me. If I tweeted:
"Hey $operator, the person manning the gate at the station at James Street this morning was really rude, yelling at people and telling them to f-off"
I can't see any situation where the skin color of that person would come into it, so how would it be possible to get someone fired "because they're black" when that information isn't even made available.
While I agree with your logic, I am open to the point of view that some people would preferentially report someone’s behavior depending on the race of the person involved.
Perhaps a black employee is more likely to get a complaint about rudeness. If so, the race wasn’t made available but still changed the interaction.
Perhaps a black employee is more likely to get a complaint about rudeness. If so, the race wasn’t made available but still changed the interaction.
I'm sure that's the case, and it will be up to the managers to be aware of unconcious bias on these types of reports and judge them respectively, but that's not going to raise a storm on twitter about a single person complaining about bad behaviour, or link that single complaint to an evidenced based dismissal later down the line.
It not okay to libelously lie about people like this. Please stop.
dguaraglia(1)
In case somebody else were wondering, I looked it up:
PoC authors in this context refers to "Persons of Color"-authors.
In hindsight it is probably clear from the context - but I didn't immediately get it. :)
PoC authors in this context refers to "Persons of Color"-authors.
In hindsight it is probably clear from the context - but I didn't immediately get it. :)
I feel you, as an European engineer far away from such matters, PoC means "proof of concept" to me :)
I had no idea what it meant and actually guessed it was some kind of slur (in line with PoS) until I learnt recently.
Weird term. Doesn't work unabbreviated as an adjective, an adjectival formation ('coloured') is long out of politically-correct favour (at least it is in the UK), and why, is 'of colour' different/better/at all a good description of someone anyway?
I'm, er, 'without colour', so it's hardly for me to object, but I couldn't comfortably use it. Fortunately (or I suppose that's why it 'feels' off to me) nobody ('of colour' or not) here seems to.
Or maybe it's just a lesson in tone etc. being harder to convey on the internet - for ages I thought 'MeToo' was against the alleged victims, as in 'oh yeah yeah me too, I'm Brian and so's my wife'.
Weird term. Doesn't work unabbreviated as an adjective, an adjectival formation ('coloured') is long out of politically-correct favour (at least it is in the UK), and why, is 'of colour' different/better/at all a good description of someone anyway?
I'm, er, 'without colour', so it's hardly for me to object, but I couldn't comfortably use it. Fortunately (or I suppose that's why it 'feels' off to me) nobody ('of colour' or not) here seems to.
Or maybe it's just a lesson in tone etc. being harder to convey on the internet - for ages I thought 'MeToo' was against the alleged victims, as in 'oh yeah yeah me too, I'm Brian and so's my wife'.
It’s a socially constructed term that was popularized in 2010 or so to figure out a way to lump Black, Latino, and Asian people together. It almost never makes any sense talk about all of those different groups as one (“Latino” and “Asian” are by themselves over-broad categories) but that’s where we are.
I get that there is a need to differentiate, for the purpose of discussion, traditionally privileged white people from, well, literally everyone else. Any label using a negative prefix like "non-white" or "un-privileged" is not desirable because it suggests a lack of something. But it seems to me like we should be able to do a lot better than a rephrasing of a term associated with the Jim Crow era.
> I get that there is a need to differentiate, for the purpose of discussion, traditionally privileged white people from, well, literally everyone else.
Is there? Asians are wealthier, more educated, more upwardly mobile, less likely to be shot by the police, and live longer, than whites. As an Asian-American man, I can expect to live as long as my Irish-American wife. Latinos, meanwhile, have various disparities resulting from the character and recency of immigration, but have similar economic mobility to whites, and within 1-3 generations achieve economic parity with whites. Cubans, who came to the US as refugees with no money, achieved parity in just one generation. 60% of multiracial people, mostly white-asian and white-hispanic, identify as white, and not multiracial.
Black and Native American people, meanwhile, face persistent economic disparities that are both large and are completely unchanged since the segregation era. Almost all black-white multiracial people identify as Black or multiracial, not as white.
The constructed term "people of color" actually obscures the fundamental dynamics of American society:
1) America is incredibly successful at assimilating immigrants, white or non-white, both socially and economically. The term "people of color" obscures the fact that these groups are basically experiencing the same economic and social trajectory that Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians, etc., experienced over American history.
2) America has been unable to make any progress at eliminating economic disparities for two groups that face unique historical circumstances: Black people, and Native Americans. The term "people of color" obscures the fact that these groups are facing American experiences that are sui generis in American history.
"People of color" is strictly less useful of a term than what preceded it, "underrepresented minority." And it appears that people realize that impracticality, because you've seen the emergence of phrases like "assimilation into whiteness" or "white-adjacent" to describe Asians and economically assimilated Latinos. These are phrases (which are offensive, by the way) coined to remedy a self-inflicted problem: defining who is "privileged" in the country in terms of "whiteness" and not something that actually reflects society.
Is there? Asians are wealthier, more educated, more upwardly mobile, less likely to be shot by the police, and live longer, than whites. As an Asian-American man, I can expect to live as long as my Irish-American wife. Latinos, meanwhile, have various disparities resulting from the character and recency of immigration, but have similar economic mobility to whites, and within 1-3 generations achieve economic parity with whites. Cubans, who came to the US as refugees with no money, achieved parity in just one generation. 60% of multiracial people, mostly white-asian and white-hispanic, identify as white, and not multiracial.
Black and Native American people, meanwhile, face persistent economic disparities that are both large and are completely unchanged since the segregation era. Almost all black-white multiracial people identify as Black or multiracial, not as white.
The constructed term "people of color" actually obscures the fundamental dynamics of American society:
1) America is incredibly successful at assimilating immigrants, white or non-white, both socially and economically. The term "people of color" obscures the fact that these groups are basically experiencing the same economic and social trajectory that Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians, etc., experienced over American history.
2) America has been unable to make any progress at eliminating economic disparities for two groups that face unique historical circumstances: Black people, and Native Americans. The term "people of color" obscures the fact that these groups are facing American experiences that are sui generis in American history.
"People of color" is strictly less useful of a term than what preceded it, "underrepresented minority." And it appears that people realize that impracticality, because you've seen the emergence of phrases like "assimilation into whiteness" or "white-adjacent" to describe Asians and economically assimilated Latinos. These are phrases (which are offensive, by the way) coined to remedy a self-inflicted problem: defining who is "privileged" in the country in terms of "whiteness" and not something that actually reflects society.
> why is 'of colour' different/better/at all a good description of someone anyway?
It's different in that it's a different phrase. It's better because it's different; terminology in this area is driven purely by fashion.
https://www.gocomics.com/bloomcounty/1988/08/28
It's different in that it's a different phrase. It's better because it's different; terminology in this area is driven purely by fashion.
https://www.gocomics.com/bloomcounty/1988/08/28
When I was in primary school, handicapped was going out of fashion in favour of disabled (wikipedia tells me we were 10-15 years later than the US on that one, culture wasn't so instantly global then). A large part of this was that handicapped had been repurposed as an insult so there was a need for disabled (as happened for the previous terminology for mental disability, also). Of course even "disabled [person/people]" is heading into the "maybe don't use that" territory these days
It's clear why this happens, having difficulties is viewed as undesirable, most people would choose not to have them if they could (I'm aware some people with disabilities have felt it made them who they are and wouldn't change it, but they aren't the people to start using terms in a pejorative manner). As long as there are real negative attitudes against black people and real negative effects on black people, this is likely to be the same for terms used there also.
I feel the only reason person centered language like "people of color" and "person with disabilities" has lasted so long as the acceptable phrasing is simply because the more wordy phrases are harder to turn into a playground insult/drunk jeering/etc.
It's clear why this happens, having difficulties is viewed as undesirable, most people would choose not to have them if they could (I'm aware some people with disabilities have felt it made them who they are and wouldn't change it, but they aren't the people to start using terms in a pejorative manner). As long as there are real negative attitudes against black people and real negative effects on black people, this is likely to be the same for terms used there also.
I feel the only reason person centered language like "people of color" and "person with disabilities" has lasted so long as the acceptable phrasing is simply because the more wordy phrases are harder to turn into a playground insult/drunk jeering/etc.
"Disabled" is being replaced by "differently abled".
That one was used pejoratively pretty much instantly, so never had much momentum, so my understanding is "person with disabilities" is the currently correct term.
I honestly find it tiring to have to always check what I'm saying just in case one of the words I'm using is on a WRL (Word Revocation List) - this basic assumption that if you use one of these words you're using it in a derogatory way...
I don't really have any suggestions about how this could be handled differently, just pointing out this aspect that does end up making me talk less, certainly about touchy subjects, because I'm afraid of being misinterpreted and seen in a bad light.
Edit: It's also especially bad because English isn't my native language so I might use some construct that seems "natural" to me but insulting to a native speaker
I don't really have any suggestions about how this could be handled differently, just pointing out this aspect that does end up making me talk less, certainly about touchy subjects, because I'm afraid of being misinterpreted and seen in a bad light.
Edit: It's also especially bad because English isn't my native language so I might use some construct that seems "natural" to me but insulting to a native speaker
Nope! "Person with" was almost instantly rejected because it is insulting to an unremovable aspect of someone's existence, condemning someone as broken and lesser.
Here we have a too-common case of virtue chasers on the "same side" attacking each other because they have slightly different useless solutions to a problem. (The way you to show more respect to different people with differences is to show more respect in actions, not to play word games that the vast majority of affected people with effects don't care about.)
Here we have a too-common case of virtue chasers on the "same side" attacking each other because they have slightly different useless solutions to a problem. (The way you to show more respect to different people with differences is to show more respect in actions, not to play word games that the vast majority of affected people with effects don't care about.)
> The way you to show more respect to different people with differences is to show more respect in actions, not to play word games that the vast majority of affected people with effects don't care about.
If anyone cared what the group being described thought about the terminology, no one would ever have tried to say "Latinx".
Like I said above, pure fashion.
If anyone cared what the group being described thought about the terminology, no one would ever have tried to say "Latinx".
Like I said above, pure fashion.
Huh, I was basing that on someone I know who recently completed a relevant college degree and is now working in the field of intellectual disabilities - the advice they received, both academic and professional is that "people with disabilities"/person centered language is the approach.
I had a look, the wikipedia page[1] indicates at least in the US that the American Medical Association, United Spinal Association and various federal and state bodies recommend it as best practice, but also points out various groups for deaf and blind people disagree.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language#Rational...
I had a look, the wikipedia page[1] indicates at least in the US that the American Medical Association, United Spinal Association and various federal and state bodies recommend it as best practice, but also points out various groups for deaf and blind people disagree.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language#Rational...
What's coming into vogue now is "diversability"[1], I guess to take the negative connotation out of "dis-ability", precisely as "differently abled" tried to do. To my mind, they're basically the same but I guess "differently abled" was derided as overly P.C. and became a comical term.
1. https://www.disabled-world.com/definitions/disability-disabl...
1. https://www.disabled-world.com/definitions/disability-disabl...
I think it has to do with which names have been chosen for people, and which chosen by people.
Not always, for example, Native American on reservations use the term Indian to refer to themselves, but outside this is becoming impolite in favour of Native American (including among some but not all Native Americans)[1][2]
See also the "Spastics Society", "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People", modern use of the n-word among black people, the use of "Negro" in "I have a Dream". Plenty of cases where a word in use by the group themselves becomes considered the impolite word.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh88fVP2FWQ
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controver...
See also the "Spastics Society", "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People", modern use of the n-word among black people, the use of "Negro" in "I have a Dream". Plenty of cases where a word in use by the group themselves becomes considered the impolite word.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh88fVP2FWQ
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controver...
"colored people" is a wonderful illustration of this farce because NAACP kept the name so long that it went from preferred to offensive and almost back to preferred, with "people of color" being the PC term in US (and "people with Foo" becoming dispreferred to "Fooed people" or "Fooed"/"Foo", and "racialized" being the PC term in Canada (which would be horrifically offensive in the US).
I enjoyed the suggestion I found somewhere that the NAACP should replace the problematic term "Colored People" in its name with "African Americans".
What happens if the name you chose for yourself doesn't match the name a Twitter mob chose for you, and they attack people using the name you prefer?
Approximately 97% of "Latinx" people do not identify as "Latinx".
Approximately 97% of "Latinx" people do not identify as "Latinx".
Why is "Point of Sale" a slur? ;-)
[deleted]
The phenomenon is called "purity spiral", and it's absolutely maddening. Here's a good article on it: https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a...
I really like the term purity spiral. It captures it quite well.
Alas, it seems this thread was flagged. Ironic given the content. But I'll continue to share that article about the purity spiral with others, it captures a lot of the things I've seen quite well.
Alas, it seems this thread was flagged. Ironic given the content. But I'll continue to share that article about the purity spiral with others, it captures a lot of the things I've seen quite well.
There's no winning in these situations. Sooner or later they will implode into smaller groups and won't have much power. Look at the different Christian sects that came to be over minor theological differences.
The only way to win is not to play.
I very vividly experienced this in a communist society, and later in a religious society. It is always a safe bet to praise G-d or Dear Leader a little more than customary. No one will dare to challenge you. And after a short while this becomes a new average and a minimum requirement.
For a humorous example of this, there's the movie Office Space, and the fight over the number of pieces of flair that Joanna is wearing. She wears 15 pieces of flair, the company required minimum, compared to the boss' favourite, Brian, who wears 37 pieces of flair.
Something I don't understand is, why don't people simply ignore such harassment and forcibly proceed towards whatever they were doing anyway? Such as publishing those books for example.
Another PoC author got her book dropped and brigaded by abusive harassers on goodreads, for the crime of tweeting a gripe that a subway employee illegally ate food on a subway train.
Elsewhere in the thread it appears this author actually attempted to get this person fired. (Also, is has apparently been legal since 2019.)
It’s more complicated than this. I don’t condone any harassment but not accurately disseminating the information is the same non-nuanced mob behavior that causes the harassment in the first place.
It’s more complicated than this. I don’t condone any harassment but not accurately disseminating the information is the same non-nuanced mob behavior that causes the harassment in the first place.
I don't understand this, how did angry activists know that she was the one who phoned 911? Are identities of 911 callers part of some public records disclosure?
She posted about it herself.
Ok, then I have to revise my opinion of this. Live by the blue checkmark, die by the blue checkmark. Social media is a cancer.
This post is misleading and outright false in some respects. From the first article posted:
"By Claire Kirch | May 31, 2020
The civil unrest in the Twin Cities continues to take its toll on Minnesota's literary community—sometimes in unexpected ways. Thursday evening, the night before protesters set fire to two adjoining Minneapolis indie bookstores and destroying them both, the reaction to a St. Paul–based literary agent’s tweet ended up gutting the boutique agency she owns.
Three agents affiliated with Red Sofa Literary tweeted this past weekend that they have resigned in response to owner Dawn Frederick’s tweet, leaving one subsidiary rights executive besides Frederick still employed there. Frederick's official Red Sofa account on Twitter has been removed."
"Frederick, who founded Red Sofa in 2008, is a well-known fixture in Minnesota’s vibrant literary community, serving on the board of directors of the Loft Literary Center and having launched the MN Publishing Tweet Up social group. She also supervises the team of volunteers working in the galley room during the Heartland Fall Forum regional booksellers trade show each year."
So no, this was not during the BLM protests in St. Louis as the date of the article precedes when those began. Furthermore she is a "well-known fixture in Minnesota's vibrant literary community", and has been since 2008, which is something I would have expected someone who "worked in publishing for years" to be aware of.
Throwing her name combined with BLM into search engines like google only returns results after this event, so your assertion of her advocacy is unfounded and not to be believed by the above and what follows.
"Minneapolis attorney Marshall Tanick of the Meyer, Njus, Tanick law firm emailed cease-and-desist letters on Monday to two literary agents and an author on behalf of his client, Dawn Frederick of Red Sofa Literary. The two agents are Beth Phelan of Gallt and Zacker (the email was cc’ed to that agency’s two principals) and Kelly Van Sant, who until two weeks ago worked for Red Sofa. The author is Isabel Sterling, who writes YA novels. SFF author Foz Meadows also received an email, she tweeted, but it contained multiple factual errors and was recalled by its sender."
"UPDATE: On Thursday afternoon, Laura Zats, a principal of Headwater Literary Management in Minneapolis announced that she received a letter from Frederick's lawyer, threatening legal action against the agent for re-tweeting tweets by others alleging that Frederick is racist. Zats is a former employee of Red Sofa Literary, who left it last year ago to found her own agency. She has joined Phelan, Van Sant, and Sterling in their GoFundMe campaign soliciting funds in case of a lawsuit. The campaign has raised almost $15,000 to date.
Several authors have announced that they are severing their relationships with Red Sofa Literary, including Margot Atwell, the head of publishing for Kickstarter. She tweeted Thursday afternoon that she has terminated her relationship with Frederick "due to the choice she made to call the police during the protests against George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis, and her subsequent decision to threaten legal action against her critics."
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/p...
So Frederick decides to start suing people, which results in agents/authors not targeted in lawsuits to cut ties with her in part due to her legal efforts.
Had she stuck with the apology she released a few days after the tweet, instead of doubling down and even throwing lawsuits around, things would have likely been far better for her. Or even not publicly announcing she was calling the police during protests against police behavior.
In other words she's not the blameless martyr you make her out to be.
And finally cancelling is just a propaganda term on the political right to escape the negative consequences of their actions. This is evidenced by it not being applied when, say the (Dixie) Chicks criticized President Bush and had their careers largely ended. It's also not applied when the 'cancelling' is apolitical, such as a restaurateur who alienates their customers/community (think Cafe Hon from Kitchen Nightmares).
EDIT: Less than 2 minutes after this was posted it was down voted and flagged.
"By Claire Kirch | May 31, 2020
The civil unrest in the Twin Cities continues to take its toll on Minnesota's literary community—sometimes in unexpected ways. Thursday evening, the night before protesters set fire to two adjoining Minneapolis indie bookstores and destroying them both, the reaction to a St. Paul–based literary agent’s tweet ended up gutting the boutique agency she owns.
Three agents affiliated with Red Sofa Literary tweeted this past weekend that they have resigned in response to owner Dawn Frederick’s tweet, leaving one subsidiary rights executive besides Frederick still employed there. Frederick's official Red Sofa account on Twitter has been removed."
"Frederick, who founded Red Sofa in 2008, is a well-known fixture in Minnesota’s vibrant literary community, serving on the board of directors of the Loft Literary Center and having launched the MN Publishing Tweet Up social group. She also supervises the team of volunteers working in the galley room during the Heartland Fall Forum regional booksellers trade show each year."
So no, this was not during the BLM protests in St. Louis as the date of the article precedes when those began. Furthermore she is a "well-known fixture in Minnesota's vibrant literary community", and has been since 2008, which is something I would have expected someone who "worked in publishing for years" to be aware of.
Throwing her name combined with BLM into search engines like google only returns results after this event, so your assertion of her advocacy is unfounded and not to be believed by the above and what follows.
"Minneapolis attorney Marshall Tanick of the Meyer, Njus, Tanick law firm emailed cease-and-desist letters on Monday to two literary agents and an author on behalf of his client, Dawn Frederick of Red Sofa Literary. The two agents are Beth Phelan of Gallt and Zacker (the email was cc’ed to that agency’s two principals) and Kelly Van Sant, who until two weeks ago worked for Red Sofa. The author is Isabel Sterling, who writes YA novels. SFF author Foz Meadows also received an email, she tweeted, but it contained multiple factual errors and was recalled by its sender."
"UPDATE: On Thursday afternoon, Laura Zats, a principal of Headwater Literary Management in Minneapolis announced that she received a letter from Frederick's lawyer, threatening legal action against the agent for re-tweeting tweets by others alleging that Frederick is racist. Zats is a former employee of Red Sofa Literary, who left it last year ago to found her own agency. She has joined Phelan, Van Sant, and Sterling in their GoFundMe campaign soliciting funds in case of a lawsuit. The campaign has raised almost $15,000 to date.
Several authors have announced that they are severing their relationships with Red Sofa Literary, including Margot Atwell, the head of publishing for Kickstarter. She tweeted Thursday afternoon that she has terminated her relationship with Frederick "due to the choice she made to call the police during the protests against George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis, and her subsequent decision to threaten legal action against her critics."
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/p...
So Frederick decides to start suing people, which results in agents/authors not targeted in lawsuits to cut ties with her in part due to her legal efforts.
Had she stuck with the apology she released a few days after the tweet, instead of doubling down and even throwing lawsuits around, things would have likely been far better for her. Or even not publicly announcing she was calling the police during protests against police behavior.
In other words she's not the blameless martyr you make her out to be.
And finally cancelling is just a propaganda term on the political right to escape the negative consequences of their actions. This is evidenced by it not being applied when, say the (Dixie) Chicks criticized President Bush and had their careers largely ended. It's also not applied when the 'cancelling' is apolitical, such as a restaurateur who alienates their customers/community (think Cafe Hon from Kitchen Nightmares).
EDIT: Less than 2 minutes after this was posted it was down voted and flagged.
[deleted]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings
"On April 8, 1933, the Main Office for Press and Propaganda of the German Student Union (DSt) proclaimed a nationwide "Action against the Un-German Spirit", which was to climax in a literary purge or "cleansing" ("Säuberung") by fire."
"On April 8, 1933, the Main Office for Press and Propaganda of the German Student Union (DSt) proclaimed a nationwide "Action against the Un-German Spirit", which was to climax in a literary purge or "cleansing" ("Säuberung") by fire."
The term "cancel culture" is extremely ironic. The implication of the term is that people should not be "cancelled" for expressing their views. And yet, backing out of a book deal, for example, is an expression of a view.
In practice, the term is used to de-legitimize some opinions, while upholding others.
The term "cancel culture" is cancel culture.
In practice, the term is used to de-legitimize some opinions, while upholding others.
The term "cancel culture" is cancel culture.
This is a bad take, the wrong side of "paradox of tolerance".
Firing/boycotting someone for doing nothing wrong, not even for something "offensive", but just for appearing to have some observable qualities vaguely similar to people who do offensive things, is unjustifiable.
Firing/boycotting someone for doing nothing wrong, not even for something "offensive", but just for appearing to have some observable qualities vaguely similar to people who do offensive things, is unjustifiable.
It blew me away when the ok symbol somehow became a white supremacist symbol.
I couldn't believe people would actually allow white supremacists to have so much power over them that they'd circumvent such a benign symbol.
I couldn't believe people would actually allow white supremacists to have so much power over them that they'd circumvent such a benign symbol.
If my meme history is correct, the okay symbol was created as a troll on 4chan, and the media took the bait
You are correct. It was the beginning of the modern ‘clown world’ movement in memery.
That's unfortunate, I know it had consequences for atleast 1 person who didn't understand the implications (I'm thinking of the driver who got recorded making the symbol).
Same thing with white milk.
>Firing/boycotting someone for doing nothing wrong, not even for something "offensive"
Just an observation: You are "cancelling" the opinions of those who do the "cancelling." In terms of the OP, you may or may not agree with the opinion of the person who did the firing, but it was based on someone being offended. Whether or not that offense was justified, or a good enough reason to fire someone, is a different question.
Just an observation: You are "cancelling" the opinions of those who do the "cancelling." In terms of the OP, you may or may not agree with the opinion of the person who did the firing, but it was based on someone being offended. Whether or not that offense was justified, or a good enough reason to fire someone, is a different question.
I don't mind down-votes, but I would prefer critical discourse.
Just a reminder that Newsweek ceased publication back in 2013, and the rights to its brand were purchased by an odd Christian sect, somewhat along the lines of The Washington Times and the Reunification Church. The new "Newsweek" capitalizes on the brand reputation of the old one, but has no connections to it; a good thing to do with Newsweek pieces is to check the byline and look up what their background is.
Honest question - it's obvious how you identify politically by all your posts here, but what has your comment got to do with the story?
If it's a false story, say it. If it's not - what exactly are you saying with your comment?
If it's a false story, say it. If it's not - what exactly are you saying with your comment?
I know it sounds like he’s “poisoning the well,” but this comment answered the question I had in my head. I thought the source was left-leaning but the article had a conservative voice.
It’s important to know who’s writing: The article is not an objective list of facts. They did not reach to the publication for comment. Some nuances might have been ironed out. This is true regardless of the political side talking.
It’s important to know who’s writing: The article is not an objective list of facts. They did not reach to the publication for comment. Some nuances might have been ironed out. This is true regardless of the political side talking.
why it is not an objective list of facts? To me it sounds quite objective, it answers all five W, exposes the facts chronologically and it even showed compromise to show the side of the company firing:
> Newsweek reached out to the agency and to Oefelein for comment and will update this article with any response.
Instead, your comment to me sounds likme an apology to the ad hominem fallacy.
> Newsweek reached out to the agency and to Oefelein for comment and will update this article with any response.
Instead, your comment to me sounds likme an apology to the ad hominem fallacy.
IMO the problem here is that they've taken a couple of tweets and profile links and ballooned it to a ten paragraph "summary" when a single link to the tweet in question would've served better.
When an article about a tweet doesn't bother to embed the tweet, it's probably a good indication that the article itself doesn't really add anything to the topic. Firsthand accounts from _either_ of the parties here would've been significantly more valuable to us as readers.
When an article about a tweet doesn't bother to embed the tweet, it's probably a good indication that the article itself doesn't really add anything to the topic. Firsthand accounts from _either_ of the parties here would've been significantly more valuable to us as readers.
> I know it sounds like he’s “poisoning the well,” but this comment answered the question I had in my head. I thought the source was left-leaning but the article had a conservative voice.
Comment contradicts what is in wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek#2018_investigation_an...
Maybe ask for sources before using some random post making unverified claims as confirmation for your own biases.
Comment contradicts what is in wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek#2018_investigation_an...
Maybe ask for sources before using some random post making unverified claims as confirmation for your own biases.
The summary in Wikipedia may be correct but it is worth remembering that Wikipedia itself is hideously biased to the left at times in its coverage of political issues.
I've generally taken that not to be down to malevolence but probably just down to the fact those drawn to editing it are most likely of a similar political hue to those from academia.
I've generally taken that not to be down to malevolence but probably just down to the fact those drawn to editing it are most likely of a similar political hue to those from academia.
When you are in the wrong lane, everybody is going against you?
Has it struck you that maybe the world is actually that way and that they prefer to be that way. Just because it isn't your way doesn't mean that you dismiss the rest of the world.
Has it struck you that maybe the world is actually that way and that they prefer to be that way. Just because it isn't your way doesn't mean that you dismiss the rest of the world.
I'm a man of the left, which is partly why I find these issues so shameful.
So you'll need to clarify how I'm "in the wrong lane".
So you'll need to clarify how I'm "in the wrong lane".
Honest question: Could you point to some examples of Wikipedia's "hideous" left-wing bias? Not trying to catch you out, I've just personally always been surprised by how neutral Wikipedia's political articles tend to be when I've read them, and I'd like to challenge my own perception here.
Not left-wing bias but rather US democrat bias see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_con...
> I've just personally always been surprised by how neutral Wikipedia's political articles tend to be when I've read them
My experience so far is that they manage to polarize even articles unrelated to politics, I think that it is partially caused by the toxicity of the community.
> I've just personally always been surprised by how neutral Wikipedia's political articles tend to be when I've read them
My experience so far is that they manage to polarize even articles unrelated to politics, I think that it is partially caused by the toxicity of the community.
Thanks for that; a very thorough overview I hadn't read and it saves me going through wikipedia to find some examples for the (reasonable) request in response to my previous comment.
I should point out that there are plenty of editors who lean left that make genuine attempts to keep it out of their editing and are as frustrated as me about those who don't; I genuinely suspect it is an editor-demographics numbers thing that causes the imbalance as much as anything, as previously stated.
I should point out that there are plenty of editors who lean left that make genuine attempts to keep it out of their editing and are as frustrated as me about those who don't; I genuinely suspect it is an editor-demographics numbers thing that causes the imbalance as much as anything, as previously stated.
What's the Occam's Razor of "everyone smart enough to be in advanced learning seems to have the same political bias", do you think?
Anecdotal, but many of the stupidest, most blinkered people I've ever met are those with "advanced learning".
There was an episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine that addressed this something along the lines of, "the smarter you are, the easier it is to talk yourself into doublethink".
They are all drinking from the same self-righteous well of "morality". The fact that they consider themselves "advanced" also seems to translate that they are also "correct" in all matters, regardless of their expertise.
I'm pretty sure the simplest explanation doesn't involve so many double quotes.
He's implying, correctly, that Newsweek is not a trustworthy or even-handed source, and that the ownership now is very likely to push stories in directions by leaving out information, or emphasizing red herrings, in order to drive an agenda.
Note that I am confident about the first clause in your summary and less confident about the second. What I'm sure of is that "Newsweek" was purchased as a skeevy ploy to acquire the journalistic reputation of Newsweek (without acquiring or investing in any of the infrastructure that created that reputation). Lots of sources claim Newsweek, in a manner similar to the Epoch Times, also has a pronounced partisan lean; I'm less sure of that, but more sure that when you look at the bylines of "Newsweek" stories, you often find content mill writers.
That stories from "Newsweek" are routinely submitted here and often voted onto the front page, despite "Newsweek" being essentially an SEO scam.
That we only seem to be reading this terrible story in Newsweek (despite the facts being there to see) suggests then that "SEO scams" are doing a better job than mainstream journalists in some cases.
I suppose that depends on whether you think the job of journalists is to report news, or to generate clicks.
How is somebody being fired for this reason not news?
Are the facts in the story false?
The claim is probably "they're likely false, please exercise caution"
I have no idea if they're false. It's a phoned-in article about a series of tweets. I wrote a comment about "Newsweek", not about the particulars of the post. "Newsweek" is essentially an SEO scam, is the point I'm making, the same way we'd point it out if a scraped blog post was blogspam.
Public service at its finest in the modern world, little thanks for the perseverance it can take to drive it through. Kudos.
Purchasing a brand is hardly a scam. You might not like who bought it but it's quite common to buy brands.
To be honest I have no idea who Newsweek were or are and if they stopped being the original group 7-8 years ago it hardly seems like you could maintain any brand loyalty if you were eroding it with wrong doing over that whole time.
To be honest I have no idea who Newsweek were or are and if they stopped being the original group 7-8 years ago it hardly seems like you could maintain any brand loyalty if you were eroding it with wrong doing over that whole time.
If you buy a brand and quietly change what it stands for, I'd say it is scammy. Consumers to think they're getting one thing, but you give them another.
To be honest I have no idea who Newsweek were or are
These things seem germane to the discussion, though.
These things seem germane to the discussion, though.
Not at all. The OP was maintaining because the brand changed hands that it was somehow a scam, that feels quite disingenuous.
Newsweek was a bastion of print media for decades in the US. It would be similar to someone turning the BBC into a Christian news organization.
The organization that took over Newsweek did it with the intention to improve their own credibility by banking on the name, while removing all the people and processes that built that credibility in the first place. If it’s not an outright scam it’s certainly approaching it.
The organization that took over Newsweek did it with the intention to improve their own credibility by banking on the name, while removing all the people and processes that built that credibility in the first place. If it’s not an outright scam it’s certainly approaching it.
that feels
How would you assess the accuracy of that feeling without knowing or finding out about the facts being discussed? You're saying 'I know nothing about this at all but that isn't germane because the OP is giving me a disingenuous vibe'. It's a curiously strident, stridently incurious position.
How would you assess the accuracy of that feeling without knowing or finding out about the facts being discussed? You're saying 'I know nothing about this at all but that isn't germane because the OP is giving me a disingenuous vibe'. It's a curiously strident, stridently incurious position.
Consider the anti-tracking browser extensions that gain enough popularity they get bought by ad tracking companies. Is that also legitimate?
Sure it is if it's a legal transaction, I'm really not sure why it's so difficult to understand.
The problem here is that many of you are projecting your own brand of morals on these deals, and many people may not share that perspective.
The problem here is that many of you are projecting your own brand of morals on these deals, and many people may not share that perspective.
FWIW, I recently learned that Wikipedia has list of perennial sources. The entry for Newsweek 2013-present says "not reliable".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
Maybe aggregators like HN can leverage this list, like a pre-filter for the moderators.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
Maybe aggregators like HN can leverage this list, like a pre-filter for the moderators.
> Honest question - it's obvious how you identify politically by all your posts here, but what has your comment got to do with the story?
If it's a false story, say it. If it's not - what exactly are you saying with your comment?
It seems like this should go without saying, but some news outlets have a better reputation for accuracy than others, and a story can be "true" in a technical sense while still being designed to further some agenda by omitting important context or facts.
I'd submit that understanding the biases and incentives of a publication are prerequisites to taking any of their content seriously. This is true of any outlet. This doesn't mean you discard outright their content, but you may view it through a more skeptical lens and seek out additional corroboration.
If it's a false story, say it. If it's not - what exactly are you saying with your comment?
It seems like this should go without saying, but some news outlets have a better reputation for accuracy than others, and a story can be "true" in a technical sense while still being designed to further some agenda by omitting important context or facts.
I'd submit that understanding the biases and incentives of a publication are prerequisites to taking any of their content seriously. This is true of any outlet. This doesn't mean you discard outright their content, but you may view it through a more skeptical lens and seek out additional corroboration.
If it's a false story, say it. If it's not - what exactly are you saying with your comment?
I find a warning that a single story might be false much less useful than a comment pointing out that the reputation of the source is no longer to be trusted.
I find a warning that a single story might be false much less useful than a comment pointing out that the reputation of the source is no longer to be trusted.
His intent was to discredit and disqualify the source and to turn attention away from what is being debated.
> If it's a false story, say it. If it's not - what exactly are you saying with your comment?
Right now it's not entirely clear what all the facts are. Perhaps she really was just fired for having an account, or perhaps she posted some things that were less-than-savoury. I think the chance that a Conservative publication would do any diligence at getting at the facts of the matter is essentially zero.
A few years ago a Conservative publication had an article that they had "proof" that Conservative accounts were banned more frequently on Twitter, based on "analysis" of the data. It took me a bit of effort to find the data, and it included shining examples of Conservatism such as the American Nazi Party. Yes, literally, the American fucking Nazi Party. It included a list of a whole bunch of other similarly minded people; I wrote down a list here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quillette#Banning_Neo-Nazis_is...
This is a very marked example, but there have been many examples where all nuance or details were left out because it was more convenient.
This is the kind of playing field we're dealing with.
Now, I'm not saying that you should trust other publications blindly – trusting anything blindly would be foolish – but trust is not binary, and generally speaking I would trust other sources more on this topic. A Conservative publication on topics like these without details are, unfortunately, not proof of anything right now and carry very little trust.
So, do I know it's a false story? No. Do I know it's a true story? Also no. Essentially a story like this is useless outside of being a lead for further investigation.
Right now it's not entirely clear what all the facts are. Perhaps she really was just fired for having an account, or perhaps she posted some things that were less-than-savoury. I think the chance that a Conservative publication would do any diligence at getting at the facts of the matter is essentially zero.
A few years ago a Conservative publication had an article that they had "proof" that Conservative accounts were banned more frequently on Twitter, based on "analysis" of the data. It took me a bit of effort to find the data, and it included shining examples of Conservatism such as the American Nazi Party. Yes, literally, the American fucking Nazi Party. It included a list of a whole bunch of other similarly minded people; I wrote down a list here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quillette#Banning_Neo-Nazis_is...
This is a very marked example, but there have been many examples where all nuance or details were left out because it was more convenient.
This is the kind of playing field we're dealing with.
Now, I'm not saying that you should trust other publications blindly – trusting anything blindly would be foolish – but trust is not binary, and generally speaking I would trust other sources more on this topic. A Conservative publication on topics like these without details are, unfortunately, not proof of anything right now and carry very little trust.
So, do I know it's a false story? No. Do I know it's a true story? Also no. Essentially a story like this is useless outside of being a lead for further investigation.
Thank your for explaining it so clearly.
> Honest question - it's obvious how you identify politically by all your posts here, but what has your comment got to do with the story?
It is the literal meaning of "virtue signalling".
It is the literal meaning of "virtue signalling".
Because the left-leaning orthodoxy of the moment is that you should under no circumstances read or watch any conservative media.
What is conservative media at this point? What even-handed voices are . . . left?
Do you have any evidence the "left wing" is in any more of an echo chamber than the right wing? Is this just personal observation or do you have something more to point to?
It’s not any more of an echo chamber, but in my experience it’s easier these days to hold heterodox opinions on the right. (Partly because over the last couple of decades the right has become more heterodox while the left has become more ideologically uniform.)
That's a thing you can only say if you've never watched a DSA person talk to a non-DSA person.
I guess, but we just had a huge violent assault on the center of US government from the right, attempting to main and threaten to kill members of their own right-wing power circle for not helping too illegally overturn an election.
You're trying to paint half the population based on the reprehensible behavior of a few thousand. Are all Democrats culpable for the Antifa/BLM riots?
You can just read the many, many articles on cancel-culture and de-platforming that have emerged in the last few years which is all a part of the same thing and overwhelmingly a problem from the left.
Presumably the right-wing are just as capable (and historically have been the aggressor often), but the left have mastered it as a form recently.
Presumably the right-wing are just as capable (and historically have been the aggressor often), but the left have mastered it as a form recently.
So, this is a different argument from the one you were making before. You first post is about ingestion of media. This one is about production. This is a very different claim, but still requires evidence beyond stating that there is some. Can you help me out and provide some?
I don't know which post about media ingestion you are referring to, you possibly have me confused with another poster or you'll need to link to it for clarification.
As for providing some evidence of cancel culture and deplatforming, somebody would have to have been living on Mars (or have blinkers) to have missed the odious practices (as evidenced in the OP!) that the terms were invented for, and I'm not sure me spending my time googling and linking examples is going to help in that case.
As for providing some evidence of cancel culture and deplatforming, somebody would have to have been living on Mars (or have blinkers) to have missed the odious practices (as evidenced in the OP!) that the terms were invented for, and I'm not sure me spending my time googling and linking examples is going to help in that case.
forgingahead(2)
I think the number of right wing political violence attacks is larger than the number of left wing political violence attacks and political cancelling a combined.
Possibly you missed then the hundreds (thousands?) of antifa/etc riots and violent attacks in the US this year alone?
I used find GPs comments insightful, particularly with regard to computer security.
Now his comments are predictably and assiduously leftist-political, and rarely on-topic to the article from what I've seen.
> The new "Newsweek" capitalizes on the brand reputation of the old one, but has no connections to it
From an external perspective it seems like the same argument could be made about the tptacek HN account. The posts from years ago which I enjoyed reading are nothing like the posts from recent history. It's like different people wrote them.
Now his comments are predictably and assiduously leftist-political, and rarely on-topic to the article from what I've seen.
> The new "Newsweek" capitalizes on the brand reputation of the old one, but has no connections to it
From an external perspective it seems like the same argument could be made about the tptacek HN account. The posts from years ago which I enjoyed reading are nothing like the posts from recent history. It's like different people wrote them.
I don’t think it’s fair to disparage someone because they don’t share your political views. tptacek hasnt changed extremely; you just never knew.
I’ve been following him on Twitter for years; and I don’t believe he had changed at all - rather HN has had more political stories as the tech sector grew.
I’ve been following him on Twitter for years; and I don’t believe he had changed at all - rather HN has had more political stories as the tech sector grew.
The irony is that my friends on the left say the same thing about me (it's a rough time to be a "liberal" and not a "leftist", even though we apparently managed to take control of all the levers of power and should be reveling in our ascendancy).
Anyways, this is yet another reason to flag political stories on Hacker News! It blows to lose the ability to enjoy someone else's writing because you learn too much about their politics.
Anyways, this is yet another reason to flag political stories on Hacker News! It blows to lose the ability to enjoy someone else's writing because you learn too much about their politics.
I know you have been on the site a little longer than I have, but I have always assumed we where of around the same genesis of digital nomads that arrived here in the second wave. Which leads me to have made some assumptions about over the years when I read your post. If they are correct, then we hold the many of the same liberal views, the next wave of HN'ers see the world very different from what the majority on the site did in the second wave of newcomers. It's not the same liberalism and I completely understand what you are saying about your friends on the left thinking the same thing. People on the right think I am a hippy people on the left think I am ready to start goose stepping and I just want everyone to be happy and live in peace, without the government mandating it.
In fact I have reason to believe tptacek have mellowed a bit since I first joined HN under another name a decade or so ago.
According to Wikipedia, it was bought by IBT Media in 2013, then spun-off as an independent entity in 2018 that I assume is owned by the same people as IBT.
I found claims that IBT's other notable property, the International Business Times (which I haven't heard of), has been a content farm, but I only glossed over it.
I can't seem to find Newsweek on the Median Bias chart, but it's ranked similarly to CNN.
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/newsweek-bias-and-reliability/
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Med...
My take is it's mostly accurate, but I wouldn't use it as a primary source.
I found claims that IBT's other notable property, the International Business Times (which I haven't heard of), has been a content farm, but I only glossed over it.
I can't seem to find Newsweek on the Median Bias chart, but it's ranked similarly to CNN.
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/newsweek-bias-and-reliability/
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Med...
My take is it's mostly accurate, but I wouldn't use it as a primary source.
See, the best trick for pushing propaganda isn't fabricating stories, but choosing carefully what stories you publish and which ones you don't.
The perfect example of that is Breitbart's infamous 'black crime' tag: Breitbart didn't need to invent stories, they'd just go and pick up out of the bunch of criminal prosecutions happening every single day in a country with >300 million inhabitants. But by choosing to focus on crimes committed by black people - and conveniently leaving out similar crimes committed by your average white criminal - it reaffirmed on their readers their 'intuition' that black people are clearly more inclined to commit crime.
So, you should always consider who is publishing a story and why.
The perfect example of that is Breitbart's infamous 'black crime' tag: Breitbart didn't need to invent stories, they'd just go and pick up out of the bunch of criminal prosecutions happening every single day in a country with >300 million inhabitants. But by choosing to focus on crimes committed by black people - and conveniently leaving out similar crimes committed by your average white criminal - it reaffirmed on their readers their 'intuition' that black people are clearly more inclined to commit crime.
So, you should always consider who is publishing a story and why.
It's true, although obviously it applies to the both sides. In fact, BLM protests were caused by exactly the same mechanism you're describing - liberal media was creating false narratives about police brutality towards black people.
"Transgender murder epidemic" is an even better example, it was completely made up by the media. Look up the numbers and compare them with the general population.
"Transgender murder epidemic" is an even better example, it was completely made up by the media. Look up the numbers and compare them with the general population.
The difference is that the criminal justice system is supposed to address every single case. Any individual case of a public prosecutor refusing to prosecute a murderer (because they're also employed as a cop) is an injustice at the scale of the entire jurisdiction. Statistics on the race of the victims aren't actually necessary to get outraged. So your argument, at best, applies to the political framing of the subject rather than the core issue.
Nope, and nope. Neither is true, and both are propaganda.
Sorry that goes against the every-day experience of black people in the USA; one of the reasons so many people got on the streets.
For many people, the idea that black people don't commit crimes at a higher rate than others goes against their every-day experience in the USA.
Maybe your response is ironic: I genuinely can't tell. But clearly "my every-day experience justifies my actions regardless of the facts about (my view)" is not a fair rebuttal, because anyone can make that claim about anything.
Maybe your response is ironic: I genuinely can't tell. But clearly "my every-day experience justifies my actions regardless of the facts about (my view)" is not a fair rebuttal, because anyone can make that claim about anything.
Cite?
For starters:
[1] https://www.nyclu.org/en/stop-and-frisk-data
[2] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2018/10/12/policing/
And [1] is in ostensibly "liberal" New York city.
[1] https://www.nyclu.org/en/stop-and-frisk-data
[2] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2018/10/12/policing/
And [1] is in ostensibly "liberal" New York city.
Thanks for the warning. I don't care about what Newsweek writes, but I mistakenly believed that International Business Times is a legitimate publication and have used it in citations before, from now on I'll start avoiding it as much as possible. Just checked on Wikipedia, IBT has been flagged as unreliable since 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:IBTIMES
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:IBTIMES
That's weird to hear. Newsweek in Poland is one of the most liberal and progressive magazines.
I’m old fashioned. I judge articles not on whether they are published by “an odd Christian sect”, but how accurate and well-sourced they are. But hey, I’m a Boomer.
Zero sources provided. There's a link that looks like it should go to the twitter post, but is a list of Newsweek stories about twitter. And the posts are apparently now private. So what did you judge this article on?
I judge this particular article as poorly sourced for the same reason you do. I do not judge the article for the religion of the publisher. I never read Newsweek. I thought it was long gone. But now that I know it’s there, I shall continue to judge its merits based on what they publish, not what the supposed political beliefs of the owner or staff happen to be.
Really? You seemed pretty willing to defend a Christian (cult?) publisher by completely ignoring the faults of the article to attack criticism based on their religion. Knowing if a publisher has a clear incentive can help determine how accurate and well-sourced their claim is.
You seem to be hallucinating. I cannot find anything I said defending the publisher. Perhaps you were responding to another post.
I have upvoted both of your posts that seem to be responding to me, because I much prefer a downvote and discourse to being down voted without comment.
I have upvoted both of your posts that seem to be responding to me, because I much prefer a downvote and discourse to being down voted without comment.
Your position was "I judge things by how accurate and well sourced the claim was, and this claim of dodgy ownership is irrelevant." I can't see it as anything but a defense based on religious/political affiliation.
Also, the important posts would be on Parler or Gab.
You can do that. I'm just pointing out that people have a conception of what Newsweek is that doesn't match what it currently is. It's worth knowing about.
You are also bothering to mention the religion of the owner, adding the (in this context) pejorative adjective "odd" and possibly more.
I mean, they are Christians and they are odd. Should he not be allowed to say this?
Absolutely allowed.
It does however feel weird in the same way that "odd female something", "odd muslim something", "odd socialist something", "odd atheist something".
Leaving out details that are not relevant is IMO smart because it helps the reader to avoid prematurely making up their mind because of irrelevant details.
So my take is tptacek should be allowed to write it and we should be allowed to point it out.
And one more thing: my respect for tptacek has been growing even if we clash from time to time in various settings.
It does however feel weird in the same way that "odd female something", "odd muslim something", "odd socialist something", "odd atheist something".
Leaving out details that are not relevant is IMO smart because it helps the reader to avoid prematurely making up their mind because of irrelevant details.
So my take is tptacek should be allowed to write it and we should be allowed to point it out.
And one more thing: my respect for tptacek has been growing even if we clash from time to time in various settings.
For the record, I am also a Christian, and I suppose to an outsider Catholicism probably looks very odd indeed, what with the feet and the noses and the gall bladders in the jars in the cathedrals and whatnot. But David Jang's "The Community" is odd in a different way --- in a more "Reunification Church" kind of way. Maybe mentally replace "odd" with "idiosyncratic" or "noteworthy". It was late when I wrote that, and I was a bit into my cups.
The word I was originally going to use was the one articles about the new "Newsweek" use: "cult". But that didn't seem quite right either.
The word I was originally going to use was the one articles about the new "Newsweek" use: "cult". But that didn't seem quite right either.
How do you know what people are thinking?
The magic of conversation
This seems unnecessarily antagonistic.
What’s a better way to ask?
tptacek may have a conception of what people are thinking which doesn't match what they currently think.
Pretty sure "old fashioned" people still judge the claims of people and organisations based on their past history.
> Just a reminder that Newsweek ceased publication back in 2013, and the rights to its brand were purchased by an odd Christian sect, somewhat along the lines of The Washington Times and the Reunification Church.
Cite?
EDIT:
Seems like this comment is false if wikipedia is to believed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek#2018_investigation_an...
> The Manhattan District Attorney's office raided Newsweek's headquarters in Lower Manhattan on January 18, 2018, and seized 18 computer servers as part of an investigation related to the company's finances.[64] IBT, which owned Newsweek, had been under scrutiny for its ties to David Jang,[64] a South Korean pastor and the leader of a Christian sect called "the Community".[65]
Would not be surprising really, given what the comment is intended to do.
Waiting for that citation.
Cite?
EDIT:
Seems like this comment is false if wikipedia is to believed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek#2018_investigation_an...
> The Manhattan District Attorney's office raided Newsweek's headquarters in Lower Manhattan on January 18, 2018, and seized 18 computer servers as part of an investigation related to the company's finances.[64] IBT, which owned Newsweek, had been under scrutiny for its ties to David Jang,[64] a South Korean pastor and the leader of a Christian sect called "the Community".[65]
Would not be surprising really, given what the comment is intended to do.
Waiting for that citation.
The very article you posted backs up the claim in the very first paragraph.
No it does not. This is the first paragraph:
> The Manhattan District Attorney's office raided Newsweek's headquarters in Lower Manhattan on January 18, 2018, and seized 18 computer servers as part of an investigation related to the company's finances.[64] IBT, which owned Newsweek, had been under scrutiny for its ties to David Jang,[64] a South Korean pastor and the leader of a Christian sect called "the Community".[65]
At no point does it say IBT is an "odd Christian sect". At no point does it say they were purchased by an "odd Christian sect". Having ties to != owned by. But you know this.
> The Manhattan District Attorney's office raided Newsweek's headquarters in Lower Manhattan on January 18, 2018, and seized 18 computer servers as part of an investigation related to the company's finances.[64] IBT, which owned Newsweek, had been under scrutiny for its ties to David Jang,[64] a South Korean pastor and the leader of a Christian sect called "the Community".[65]
At no point does it say IBT is an "odd Christian sect". At no point does it say they were purchased by an "odd Christian sect". Having ties to != owned by. But you know this.
Btw, the agent that was fired, Colleen Oefelein, was also the victim of an attempted kidnap plot by her current husband's ex-mistress in 2007. This story, dubbed, the "Astronaut Love Triangle" because her husband and the ex were astronauts, was all over the news and even made into a movie starring Natalie Portman and Jon Hamm.
https://people.com/crime/astronaut-love-triangle-nine-years-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_in_the_Sky
https://people.com/crime/astronaut-love-triangle-nine-years-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_in_the_Sky
Wow, I knew the name sounded vaguely familiar, but I never would have made the connection!
Oh snap. The diapers astronaut lady.
People are walking chimps, organizing into tribes and beating the other tribe. Like, our cousins, we take visceral emotional satisfaction in demeaning the other tribe.
Today’s US is just a grand example of this at Internet scale and energized by social media. Welcome to shit throwing and the tearing off of genitals.
What you have now are threat displays to keep the losing tribe in its place. People identifying with the winning tribe feel good that there is a lesser party to trample on.
Calls for unity happen after a change in power because constant struggle is destructive. After a change in power, lesser chimps (tech) pay fealty to the new alphas (Democratic Congress and Presidency).
This whole system works because cooperation within a group allows the group as a whole to compete effectively against other groups. We are organized fractally in this way. To the victor go the spoils.
Today’s US is just a grand example of this at Internet scale and energized by social media. Welcome to shit throwing and the tearing off of genitals.
What you have now are threat displays to keep the losing tribe in its place. People identifying with the winning tribe feel good that there is a lesser party to trample on.
Calls for unity happen after a change in power because constant struggle is destructive. After a change in power, lesser chimps (tech) pay fealty to the new alphas (Democratic Congress and Presidency).
This whole system works because cooperation within a group allows the group as a whole to compete effectively against other groups. We are organized fractally in this way. To the victor go the spoils.
People seem to be doing what losers do when facing destruction: move away.
You see movement in both physical and virtual spaces. In people and in companies to different states. In people moving to different social media. People stop fighting with you, they just avoid you.
China is going to be the obvious dominant world power within Biden’s term.
You see movement in both physical and virtual spaces. In people and in companies to different states. In people moving to different social media. People stop fighting with you, they just avoid you.
China is going to be the obvious dominant world power within Biden’s term.
In Germany there is the term "inner emmigration", if people oppose to the current system, but keep silent in fear of repression. This was coined during Nazi time, but also used to describe part of the opposition during socialism in East Germany.
What it basically describes people who:
- are opposed to the current political system (originally the Nazi regime)
- cannot speak their opinion for fear of repressions
. cannot or do not want ot leave their country
- do not want to adapt to the political system
Currently we have inner emmigration among conservatives. It is almost impossible to speak out as a conservative without fearing consequences. People are not revolting, but they are bascially done with the political system.
What it basically describes people who:
- are opposed to the current political system (originally the Nazi regime)
- cannot speak their opinion for fear of repressions
. cannot or do not want ot leave their country
- do not want to adapt to the political system
Currently we have inner emmigration among conservatives. It is almost impossible to speak out as a conservative without fearing consequences. People are not revolting, but they are bascially done with the political system.
That's most certainly not true for Germany, at least if we are talking about German definitions of conservatism. A lot of GOP members are more close to what in the German political system would be seen as the extreme right, arguably bordering on the autocratic right.
There is representation of the conservative voice both in media and the political system. There is repression, both informal and in the legal code, of Neonazi speech.
There is representation of the conservative voice both in media and the political system. There is repression, both informal and in the legal code, of Neonazi speech.
Don’t you guys have crosses on government buildings? https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/europe/bavaria-germany-crosse...
Didn’t Angela Merkel reject “multiculturalism?” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/14...
Don’t you have religious education in public schools? https://www.dw.com/en/in-german-schools-opt-out-of-religion-...
Isn’t abortion still technically illegally in Germany? https://www.dw.com/en/activists-in-germany-demand-legalizati.... And as a practical matter, German abortion law would be unconstitutional for multiple reasons under our Roe v. Wade.
Part of why the American GOP has gotten so wacky is that over the past 50 years American liberals have wiped social conservatism out of the public sphere in a way that doesn’t seem to be the case in Germany. In the US, saying what Merkel did that “multiculturalism is a failure” would get you branded a Nazi. Not even Trump would say that. Saying that abortion should generally be illegal after 12 weeks gets you lumped in with religious fundamentalists.
This is due to two features of the American political system. First, our courts have taken it upon themselves to adjudicate social issues that are in Europe handled by the legislature. Second, our social conservatives are split into different parties along racial lines. The Democratic Party is a coalition, but white liberals firmly control the social platform. Biden has promised to appoint a Black women Justice. Statistically speaking half of Black women oppose same-sex marriage. Do you think there is any chance Biden will appoint a socially conservative Black woman?
If the American political system was as meaningfully accommodating of social conservatism as the German one (and I think that would require getting our courts out of the business of being social moral arbiters) I think you’d see a lot more normalcy.
Didn’t Angela Merkel reject “multiculturalism?” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/14...
Don’t you have religious education in public schools? https://www.dw.com/en/in-german-schools-opt-out-of-religion-...
Isn’t abortion still technically illegally in Germany? https://www.dw.com/en/activists-in-germany-demand-legalizati.... And as a practical matter, German abortion law would be unconstitutional for multiple reasons under our Roe v. Wade.
Part of why the American GOP has gotten so wacky is that over the past 50 years American liberals have wiped social conservatism out of the public sphere in a way that doesn’t seem to be the case in Germany. In the US, saying what Merkel did that “multiculturalism is a failure” would get you branded a Nazi. Not even Trump would say that. Saying that abortion should generally be illegal after 12 weeks gets you lumped in with religious fundamentalists.
This is due to two features of the American political system. First, our courts have taken it upon themselves to adjudicate social issues that are in Europe handled by the legislature. Second, our social conservatives are split into different parties along racial lines. The Democratic Party is a coalition, but white liberals firmly control the social platform. Biden has promised to appoint a Black women Justice. Statistically speaking half of Black women oppose same-sex marriage. Do you think there is any chance Biden will appoint a socially conservative Black woman?
If the American political system was as meaningfully accommodating of social conservatism as the German one (and I think that would require getting our courts out of the business of being social moral arbiters) I think you’d see a lot more normalcy.
Oof, I won't go into details, but you got a couple of things wrong about Germany.
First, the crosses on gov't buildings are specific to Bavaria. As the USA, Germany has a strong federal constitution which allows the states some lee-way. Furthermore the German Constitutional Court has ruled crosses in schools must be removed if parents object, a ruling that was partially overruled by the ECHR.
Second, Merkel's remarks were rather specific to a form of living together without an overarching attempt at having and enforcing core values. She did not reject other cultures or beliefs. I doubt her position would be controversial in a country with the "e pluribus unum" as part of the brand identity, but I can't really say as I don't know the USA too well.
IDK about the assessment that liberals destroyed social conservatism in the USA as it is again not my country. But from over here, it really seems like the GOP went into a tail-spin over the last decade, maybe even since Reagan. In Germany, due to our voting system, the conservative party is as much a coalition as the Democrats in the USA while the left is more splintered.
I'd say if you wanted to have a less extremist conservative party, you'd need to get rid of the FPTP voting system: it would allow the GOP to jettison the right-wing extremists and seek a ruling coalition while fighting the Democrats for centrist voters/moderate conservatives.
But if the liberals really forced the GOP into becoming a assembly of lunatics, hats off, they did a great job. I somehow doubt it, though...
First, the crosses on gov't buildings are specific to Bavaria. As the USA, Germany has a strong federal constitution which allows the states some lee-way. Furthermore the German Constitutional Court has ruled crosses in schools must be removed if parents object, a ruling that was partially overruled by the ECHR.
Second, Merkel's remarks were rather specific to a form of living together without an overarching attempt at having and enforcing core values. She did not reject other cultures or beliefs. I doubt her position would be controversial in a country with the "e pluribus unum" as part of the brand identity, but I can't really say as I don't know the USA too well.
IDK about the assessment that liberals destroyed social conservatism in the USA as it is again not my country. But from over here, it really seems like the GOP went into a tail-spin over the last decade, maybe even since Reagan. In Germany, due to our voting system, the conservative party is as much a coalition as the Democrats in the USA while the left is more splintered.
I'd say if you wanted to have a less extremist conservative party, you'd need to get rid of the FPTP voting system: it would allow the GOP to jettison the right-wing extremists and seek a ruling coalition while fighting the Democrats for centrist voters/moderate conservatives.
But if the liberals really forced the GOP into becoming a assembly of lunatics, hats off, they did a great job. I somehow doubt it, though...
> First, the crosses on gov't buildings are specific to Bavaria. As the USA, Germany has a strong federal constitution which allows the states some lee-way. Furthermore the German Constitutional Court has ruled crosses in schools must be removed if parents object, a ruling that was partially overruled by the ECHR.
That's true in theory, but the Supreme Court has taken upon itself to impose uniform standards for the whole nation. As I recall, the German Constitutional Court upheld the practice in general, reasoning that it was an expression of Germany's heritage as a Christian nation. It then balanced that principle against the potential burden on religious minorities, to fashion that compromise.
In the United States, we're not allowed to acknowledge the country's heritage as a Christian country. More important, there is generally no balancing between the cultural expression of the majority and the interests of the minority. That's a huge difference between American and German constitutional law. In German constitutional law, there is a strong balancing of minority rights against the effect of certain things on the majority. In American constitutional law, almost zero weight is given to how recognizing a minority right (such as the right to be free from feeling excluded by seeing a cross in a school house) might affect the cultural expression oof the majority.
> Second, Merkel's remarks were rather specific to a form of living together without an overarching attempt at having and enforcing core values. She did not reject other cultures or beliefs. I doubt her position would be controversial in a country with the "e pluribus unum" as part of the brand identity, but I can't really say as I don't know the USA too well.
Merkel appears to be using the term according to its typical meaning. "Multiculturalism" means you have a country with people of different cultures living together, without an attempt to impose unifying core values. And rejecting multiculturalism in that sense is controversial. Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State, was attacked as a racist recently for saying the same thing. He didn't "reject other cultures or belies." As far as I can tell, he and other American conservatives use the phrase to mean exactly the same thing as Merkel does.
> In Germany, due to our voting system, the conservative party is as much a coalition as the Democrats in the USA while the left is more splintered.
It's not just the voting system, it's the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has allowed social liberals to impose policies without any coalition building, and even without building public consensus. On abortion, for example, no state is allowed to make abortion illegal before viability (20-24 weeks). This is enormously unpopular in the US (under 30% support). And presumably it's unpopular in Germany, where there is a 12-week limit absent special circumstances.
I'm just trying to paint for you a picture of why conservatives in the U.S. might be frustrated, by reference to how things are in Germany. Keep in mind, though, that Americans are much more conservative than Germans to begin with! Less than 10% of Germans pray daily. For Americans, it's 50%, similar to Turkey!
Germany obviously makes political concessions to Christians and social conservatives. There is (opt-out) religious education in schools, abortion is limited mainly to the first trimester, and there are things like waiting periods and counseling.
This is a really important point I'd appreciate your giving serious consideration to: How would CDU members feel, today, if the German Constitutional Court suddenly decided there could be no religious education in schools, that abortion had to be legal to 24 weeks, etc? How do you think people in Germany would have reacted to those things had they happened in the 1950s-1970s, like happened here?
Take it a step further. The year after Obergefell legalized same-sex marriage in the US, the ECHR ruled there was no right to same-sex marriage in the European Convention on Human Rights. How do you think CDU members would have taken having the ECHR impose that on Germany? How do you think Poland or Italy would have taken that? As I recall, by the time Germany legalized same-sex marriage in 2017, 80% of Germans already supported it. How do you think Germans would have felt had the EHCR legalized same-sex marriage in Germany back in the 2000s when under 50% of people supported it? (I think Americans are probably 10 years behind Germany on that issue.)
Heck, Angela Merkel voted against same-sex marriage in Germany after Trump ran on accepting it a year earlier. In the US that vote would have caused the press to go completely apoplectic.
That's true in theory, but the Supreme Court has taken upon itself to impose uniform standards for the whole nation. As I recall, the German Constitutional Court upheld the practice in general, reasoning that it was an expression of Germany's heritage as a Christian nation. It then balanced that principle against the potential burden on religious minorities, to fashion that compromise.
In the United States, we're not allowed to acknowledge the country's heritage as a Christian country. More important, there is generally no balancing between the cultural expression of the majority and the interests of the minority. That's a huge difference between American and German constitutional law. In German constitutional law, there is a strong balancing of minority rights against the effect of certain things on the majority. In American constitutional law, almost zero weight is given to how recognizing a minority right (such as the right to be free from feeling excluded by seeing a cross in a school house) might affect the cultural expression oof the majority.
> Second, Merkel's remarks were rather specific to a form of living together without an overarching attempt at having and enforcing core values. She did not reject other cultures or beliefs. I doubt her position would be controversial in a country with the "e pluribus unum" as part of the brand identity, but I can't really say as I don't know the USA too well.
Merkel appears to be using the term according to its typical meaning. "Multiculturalism" means you have a country with people of different cultures living together, without an attempt to impose unifying core values. And rejecting multiculturalism in that sense is controversial. Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State, was attacked as a racist recently for saying the same thing. He didn't "reject other cultures or belies." As far as I can tell, he and other American conservatives use the phrase to mean exactly the same thing as Merkel does.
> In Germany, due to our voting system, the conservative party is as much a coalition as the Democrats in the USA while the left is more splintered.
It's not just the voting system, it's the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has allowed social liberals to impose policies without any coalition building, and even without building public consensus. On abortion, for example, no state is allowed to make abortion illegal before viability (20-24 weeks). This is enormously unpopular in the US (under 30% support). And presumably it's unpopular in Germany, where there is a 12-week limit absent special circumstances.
I'm just trying to paint for you a picture of why conservatives in the U.S. might be frustrated, by reference to how things are in Germany. Keep in mind, though, that Americans are much more conservative than Germans to begin with! Less than 10% of Germans pray daily. For Americans, it's 50%, similar to Turkey!
Germany obviously makes political concessions to Christians and social conservatives. There is (opt-out) religious education in schools, abortion is limited mainly to the first trimester, and there are things like waiting periods and counseling.
This is a really important point I'd appreciate your giving serious consideration to: How would CDU members feel, today, if the German Constitutional Court suddenly decided there could be no religious education in schools, that abortion had to be legal to 24 weeks, etc? How do you think people in Germany would have reacted to those things had they happened in the 1950s-1970s, like happened here?
Take it a step further. The year after Obergefell legalized same-sex marriage in the US, the ECHR ruled there was no right to same-sex marriage in the European Convention on Human Rights. How do you think CDU members would have taken having the ECHR impose that on Germany? How do you think Poland or Italy would have taken that? As I recall, by the time Germany legalized same-sex marriage in 2017, 80% of Germans already supported it. How do you think Germans would have felt had the EHCR legalized same-sex marriage in Germany back in the 2000s when under 50% of people supported it? (I think Americans are probably 10 years behind Germany on that issue.)
Heck, Angela Merkel voted against same-sex marriage in Germany after Trump ran on accepting it a year earlier. In the US that vote would have caused the press to go completely apoplectic.
>That's true in theory, but the Supreme Court has taken upon itself to impose uniform standards for the whole nation. As I recall, the German Constitutional Court upheld the practice in general, reasoning that it was an expression of Germany's heritage as a Christian nation. It then balanced that principle against the potential burden on religious minorities, to fashion that compromise.
It's more difficult and I really, really won't go into details because there are several conflicting legislations (state vs. federal), court cases and I honestly don't understand law deeply. The salient point that the ECHR ruling overrode the German Constitutional Court in that regard. If its ruling would still stand, it would overrule Bavarian legislation.
>In the United States, we're not allowed to acknowledge the country's heritage as a Christian country.
Confusing, as your nation's claim seems to be "In God we trust" if I am not wrong? For a country that claims separation of church and state, that's pretty Christian, in fact I wonder what US atheists have to say about that.
I'd like to point out the following: Germany has - contrary to how US Americans both from the left and right use it as a space for projection - traditionally been a socially conservative country, one of the more conservative ones in Western Europe, and I am not even talking about the time before 1945. That's why the incomplete separation of church and state in Bavaria, the call for traditional German values as the cultural mold by politicians from Merkel's party or the abortion laws are totally not surprising.
You might also be unaware of that, but civil liberties have to a great extend been forced down the throats of German politicians and conservative voters alike by the German Constitutional Court. E.g.
- gay marriage,
- equal rights for non-married couples and for kids conceived out of wedlock,
- (some) equal rights for women,
- freedom of speech,
- freedom of the press,
- the high rank of privacy laws
- restriction on out of area operations for Bundeswehr (requires Bundestag vote)
- disallowing the cross in schools (as mentioned, overturned by the ECHR)
- giving up the Mark for the Euro
- enshrining a lower bound for welfare payments that is binding to all of Germany. This is no longer a privilege but a right on the level of constitutional rights.
Likewise, the liberals had to swallow some unpopular rulings, e.g. the one forbidding abortion but decriminalizing it in the first 12w, essentially something conservatives won (the contested law allowed up to 24w). I can't believe that the US Supreme Court has not sided with conservatives at times.
The difference in Germany is that the political role of the Constitutional Court is widely accepted and politicians handle the issue responsibly. Bashing of the court system because of decisions that go against own beliefs is rare and frowned upon. The only party that questions that consensus is the extreme right (historically also the Marxists but those don't play a role anymore, and the rest of the far left has made peace with the court). But then, we are in the sunset phase of the Merkel years, so maybe the CDU will do a GOP and let themselves held captive by the alt-right.
But the conservative brand we got over here is able to see the value of compromises and after some time is able to move on, whereas in the USA it seems to me that moderate conservatives have died out and been replaced by what we consider extremists. And yet, they find voters because there is no moderate alternative.
It's more difficult and I really, really won't go into details because there are several conflicting legislations (state vs. federal), court cases and I honestly don't understand law deeply. The salient point that the ECHR ruling overrode the German Constitutional Court in that regard. If its ruling would still stand, it would overrule Bavarian legislation.
>In the United States, we're not allowed to acknowledge the country's heritage as a Christian country.
Confusing, as your nation's claim seems to be "In God we trust" if I am not wrong? For a country that claims separation of church and state, that's pretty Christian, in fact I wonder what US atheists have to say about that.
I'd like to point out the following: Germany has - contrary to how US Americans both from the left and right use it as a space for projection - traditionally been a socially conservative country, one of the more conservative ones in Western Europe, and I am not even talking about the time before 1945. That's why the incomplete separation of church and state in Bavaria, the call for traditional German values as the cultural mold by politicians from Merkel's party or the abortion laws are totally not surprising.
You might also be unaware of that, but civil liberties have to a great extend been forced down the throats of German politicians and conservative voters alike by the German Constitutional Court. E.g.
- gay marriage,
- equal rights for non-married couples and for kids conceived out of wedlock,
- (some) equal rights for women,
- freedom of speech,
- freedom of the press,
- the high rank of privacy laws
- restriction on out of area operations for Bundeswehr (requires Bundestag vote)
- disallowing the cross in schools (as mentioned, overturned by the ECHR)
- giving up the Mark for the Euro
- enshrining a lower bound for welfare payments that is binding to all of Germany. This is no longer a privilege but a right on the level of constitutional rights.
Likewise, the liberals had to swallow some unpopular rulings, e.g. the one forbidding abortion but decriminalizing it in the first 12w, essentially something conservatives won (the contested law allowed up to 24w). I can't believe that the US Supreme Court has not sided with conservatives at times.
The difference in Germany is that the political role of the Constitutional Court is widely accepted and politicians handle the issue responsibly. Bashing of the court system because of decisions that go against own beliefs is rare and frowned upon. The only party that questions that consensus is the extreme right (historically also the Marxists but those don't play a role anymore, and the rest of the far left has made peace with the court). But then, we are in the sunset phase of the Merkel years, so maybe the CDU will do a GOP and let themselves held captive by the alt-right.
But the conservative brand we got over here is able to see the value of compromises and after some time is able to move on, whereas in the USA it seems to me that moderate conservatives have died out and been replaced by what we consider extremists. And yet, they find voters because there is no moderate alternative.
> The salient point that the ECHR ruling overrode the German Constitutional Court in that regard. If its ruling would still stand, it would overrule Bavarian legislation.
Which ECHR ruling are you referring to? My understanding of the ECHR precedent on this is that displaying a cross in schools is permissible under the 2011 Lautsi decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautsi_v._Italy
> It granted that, "by prescribing the presence of crucifixes in State-schools classrooms – a sign which, whether or not it is accorded in addition a secular symbolic value, undoubtedly refers to Christianity – the regulations confer on the country's majority religion preponderant visibility in the school environment." But it declared: "That is not in itself sufficient, however, to denote a process of indoctrination on the respondent State's part and establish a breach of the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1". It added that "a crucifix on a wall is an essentially passive symbol and ... cannot be deemed to have an influence on pupils comparable to that of didactic speech or participation in religious activities".
> Confusing, as your nation's claim seems to be "In God we trust" if I am not wrong? For a country that claims separation of church and state, that's pretty Christian, in fact I wonder what US atheists have to say about that.
I'm pretty sure American Christians would happily take "in God we trust" off the currency in return for religious education in public schools, as is the case in the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy.
> I'd like to point out the following: Germany has - contrary to how US Americans both from the left and right use it as a space for projection - traditionally been a socially conservative country, one of the more conservative ones in Western Europe
I'm aware of that. My wife lived in Germany for a while. That's why I'm using Germany as an example, to illustrate how another socially conservative democracy works. The United States is even more conservative, more comparable to Poland or Turkey than Germany.
> - gay marriage
The German Constitutional Court decision on same-sex marriage, like the abortion decision, was precisely the opposite of what happened in the U.S. In the case of same-sex marriage, the Bundestag legalized it (over Merkel's objection). The Constitutional Court then held that the Constitution allowed for legalization of same-sex marriage. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/new-german-gay-partnership-l.... In the U.S., it was the opposite. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution required legalization of same-sex marriage.
> - disallowing the cross in schools (as mentioned, overturned by the ECHR)
The mildness of the German Constitutional Court decision illustrates what I'm talking about. Germany required schools to remove the cross if someone complained. In the United States, the Supreme Court eliminated religion from schools completely, in a blanket fashion. (And it happened 70 years ago!) American public schools can't even offer religious instruction, while German schools are required to offer it (unless the parent opts out).
- giving up the Mark for the Euro
Again, this was a scenario where the German Constitutional Court deferred to the legislature.
> I can't believe that the US Supreme Court has not sided with conservatives at times.
On social issues, it consistently sides with liberals. This is due to the dynamics of the legal profession, where the conservatives tend to be what people call "coastal elites." They are economically conservative, but often relatively liberal socially. For example, while abortion remains technically illegal in Germany, I count only 3 votes to overturn Roe v. Wade (which would not make abortion illegal, but simply allow Americans to adopt an abortion law like Germany or France).
> The difference in Germany is that the political role of the Constitutional Court is widely accepted and politicians handle the issue responsibly. Bashing of the court system because of decisions that go against own beliefs is rare and frowned upon.
How much of that comes from the fact that the German Constitutional Court tends to be deferential to the society's conservatism?
Which ECHR ruling are you referring to? My understanding of the ECHR precedent on this is that displaying a cross in schools is permissible under the 2011 Lautsi decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautsi_v._Italy
> It granted that, "by prescribing the presence of crucifixes in State-schools classrooms – a sign which, whether or not it is accorded in addition a secular symbolic value, undoubtedly refers to Christianity – the regulations confer on the country's majority religion preponderant visibility in the school environment." But it declared: "That is not in itself sufficient, however, to denote a process of indoctrination on the respondent State's part and establish a breach of the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1". It added that "a crucifix on a wall is an essentially passive symbol and ... cannot be deemed to have an influence on pupils comparable to that of didactic speech or participation in religious activities".
> Confusing, as your nation's claim seems to be "In God we trust" if I am not wrong? For a country that claims separation of church and state, that's pretty Christian, in fact I wonder what US atheists have to say about that.
I'm pretty sure American Christians would happily take "in God we trust" off the currency in return for religious education in public schools, as is the case in the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy.
> I'd like to point out the following: Germany has - contrary to how US Americans both from the left and right use it as a space for projection - traditionally been a socially conservative country, one of the more conservative ones in Western Europe
I'm aware of that. My wife lived in Germany for a while. That's why I'm using Germany as an example, to illustrate how another socially conservative democracy works. The United States is even more conservative, more comparable to Poland or Turkey than Germany.
> - gay marriage
The German Constitutional Court decision on same-sex marriage, like the abortion decision, was precisely the opposite of what happened in the U.S. In the case of same-sex marriage, the Bundestag legalized it (over Merkel's objection). The Constitutional Court then held that the Constitution allowed for legalization of same-sex marriage. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/new-german-gay-partnership-l.... In the U.S., it was the opposite. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution required legalization of same-sex marriage.
> - disallowing the cross in schools (as mentioned, overturned by the ECHR)
The mildness of the German Constitutional Court decision illustrates what I'm talking about. Germany required schools to remove the cross if someone complained. In the United States, the Supreme Court eliminated religion from schools completely, in a blanket fashion. (And it happened 70 years ago!) American public schools can't even offer religious instruction, while German schools are required to offer it (unless the parent opts out).
- giving up the Mark for the Euro
Again, this was a scenario where the German Constitutional Court deferred to the legislature.
> I can't believe that the US Supreme Court has not sided with conservatives at times.
On social issues, it consistently sides with liberals. This is due to the dynamics of the legal profession, where the conservatives tend to be what people call "coastal elites." They are economically conservative, but often relatively liberal socially. For example, while abortion remains technically illegal in Germany, I count only 3 votes to overturn Roe v. Wade (which would not make abortion illegal, but simply allow Americans to adopt an abortion law like Germany or France).
> The difference in Germany is that the political role of the Constitutional Court is widely accepted and politicians handle the issue responsibly. Bashing of the court system because of decisions that go against own beliefs is rare and frowned upon.
How much of that comes from the fact that the German Constitutional Court tends to be deferential to the society's conservatism?
My guess is that the fallout of the right wing's promised "tickle down" economics and the neoliberal politics of thatcherism is making people angry.
I think it is more the obvious ubiquitous hypocrism. Everybody is anti racist and anti sexist, but blames the white man. Looting and burning buildings is ok, as long as the ideology behind it fits the narrative. Everybody is anti fascist, but if you have a different opinion you will get fucked up. Who in his right mind wants to argue with this bullshit?
I used to think this. I used to watch a lot of media from youtube creators that were previously part of the atheism movement and gradually transitioned into right wing content. Once I started also consuming media from people on the left, I found that this was a caricature designed to prevent me from listening to people on the left that did have good points.
Yes there are extremists that like to shout, but they are in the minority or a person in riled up circumstances.
Yes there are extremists that like to shout, but they are in the minority or a person in riled up circumstances.
Haven't China been the obvious world power for atleast 10 years now?
Or, atleast, that it have been obvious that they will soon be...
Or, atleast, that it have been obvious that they will soon be...
I think what will happen is that a larger percentage of the US will realize it and not like it. I think the US lives in a bubble but other parts of the world are feeling that shift already.
I wonder how many Americans know that Europe trades more with China than the US. Or that Japan also trades more with China than the US. Same with Africa.
The US is retreating into protectionism, internal struggle, and the opiate of social media.
It’s not that China didn’t play dirty. It’s just that the US is losing.
Having the most expensive military force isn’t nearly as useful if other sides possess nuclear weapons like you. Then it becomes a struggle along other dimensions.
The US seems full of entrenched institutions there just to increase their own power. Yet it is these institutions that are causing the greatest issues.
You have medical costs spiraling out of control. You have educational costs spiraling out of control. You have infrastructure costs spiraling out of control.
Changes in the political order have changed none of this. I don’t see the latest change addressing these either.
You can see this in the actions of the current alpha and the previous alpha. Neither addressed or is addressing how the above consume the largest and ever increasing percentages of GDP without producing corresponding gains.
Are Americans living longer and healthier lives? No, they are living shorter and less healthy lives.
Can a high percentage of the population make good incomes with their expensive educations? No, many are relegated to low wage, dead end service and gig jobs.
Why do we have to deal with inadequate and overpriced transportation, water, and energy infrastructure? How many consecutive years of forest fires does California have to live with?
The new administration just patches things without taking on the institutions themselves.
$15 minimum wage and making college free doesn’t make college more useful. It just provides an endless trough for bad education to feed.
More medicine for all doesn’t address the problem that it is way too expensive. It just feeds more money into a money eating pit.
More purchasing of clean energy infrastructure but enforcing domestic production doesn’t address the problem that your companies produce uncompetitive products. Will buying Ford electric trucks at higher prices than you could get elsewhere help anyone but Ford?
I wonder how many Americans know that Europe trades more with China than the US. Or that Japan also trades more with China than the US. Same with Africa.
The US is retreating into protectionism, internal struggle, and the opiate of social media.
It’s not that China didn’t play dirty. It’s just that the US is losing.
Having the most expensive military force isn’t nearly as useful if other sides possess nuclear weapons like you. Then it becomes a struggle along other dimensions.
The US seems full of entrenched institutions there just to increase their own power. Yet it is these institutions that are causing the greatest issues.
You have medical costs spiraling out of control. You have educational costs spiraling out of control. You have infrastructure costs spiraling out of control.
Changes in the political order have changed none of this. I don’t see the latest change addressing these either.
You can see this in the actions of the current alpha and the previous alpha. Neither addressed or is addressing how the above consume the largest and ever increasing percentages of GDP without producing corresponding gains.
Are Americans living longer and healthier lives? No, they are living shorter and less healthy lives.
Can a high percentage of the population make good incomes with their expensive educations? No, many are relegated to low wage, dead end service and gig jobs.
Why do we have to deal with inadequate and overpriced transportation, water, and energy infrastructure? How many consecutive years of forest fires does California have to live with?
The new administration just patches things without taking on the institutions themselves.
$15 minimum wage and making college free doesn’t make college more useful. It just provides an endless trough for bad education to feed.
More medicine for all doesn’t address the problem that it is way too expensive. It just feeds more money into a money eating pit.
More purchasing of clean energy infrastructure but enforcing domestic production doesn’t address the problem that your companies produce uncompetitive products. Will buying Ford electric trucks at higher prices than you could get elsewhere help anyone but Ford?
The US and to a lesser extent the EU sold their manufacturing sectors to China without any idea of what to replace them with or what to do with the populations who relied on that work, we are feeling the pain of a self inflicted wound. They did this at the same time they dismantled the social safety nets that could have maybe kept people going. Now millennials are feeling the pain of those decisions in an economy that frequently crashes, with houses and education that are increasingly unaffordable.
Yes, but I think both are happening in the US. Hollowing out of manufacturing along with entrenched interests. Millennials get to feel both: expensive schooling ending up in low paid, dead end service jobs and gigs.
From my view it looks like the US optimized their political/economic system for the situation they where in just after WW2, when most other developed countries had been bombed quite a bit.
It sort of made sense then to focus so heavily on growth, they had an entire planet (not really, but a large portion) that would buy their stuff. Worring about income distribution seemed a bit unnessecary when there was so much growth that "everyone" gets a piece of the cake.
This really isn't the case anymore, but a large part (maybe even a majority) of americans still seem to think that growth is the most important factor when designing their economic system.
The new administration doesn't have a mandate to change this, Biden didn't win because he promised reform, he won because he promised to stop trump from dismantling american democracy. And he won with a really small margin.
While I generally argue that the american institutions are dysfunctional, I really wouldn't blame the current administration for not addressing the issue, not only do they not have the mandate, but their stated political ideology is "liberalism", not social democracy, so why would they want to?
It sort of made sense then to focus so heavily on growth, they had an entire planet (not really, but a large portion) that would buy their stuff. Worring about income distribution seemed a bit unnessecary when there was so much growth that "everyone" gets a piece of the cake.
This really isn't the case anymore, but a large part (maybe even a majority) of americans still seem to think that growth is the most important factor when designing their economic system.
The new administration doesn't have a mandate to change this, Biden didn't win because he promised reform, he won because he promised to stop trump from dismantling american democracy. And he won with a really small margin.
While I generally argue that the american institutions are dysfunctional, I really wouldn't blame the current administration for not addressing the issue, not only do they not have the mandate, but their stated political ideology is "liberalism", not social democracy, so why would they want to?
I feel like my choice to not participate in non-anonymous social media in any but the absolute most bland and uninteresting ways is the best long running decision I've ever made. The end of anonymized internet is the end of my participation in it and sadly I think that day is fast approaching.
> the best long running decision I've ever made
I feel exactly the same way, although initially, this wasn't a conscious decision. I just did not understand the hype and ignored it. For me, as a 90ies kid, social media was IRC, messengers, and email. It still is. When I first read about Twitter, I thought that technologically, it was only one step away from a Hello World web application.
I feel exactly the same way, although initially, this wasn't a conscious decision. I just did not understand the hype and ignored it. For me, as a 90ies kid, social media was IRC, messengers, and email. It still is. When I first read about Twitter, I thought that technologically, it was only one step away from a Hello World web application.
but if a future employer asks to see some social credentials and they don't see any, they ll be suspicious
If a future employer expects such social "credentials" from me, I'll be suspicious and tell them where to go.
My favourite take I read about was to give them the credentials for a social-media account that is full of personal information that directly fields the "illegal interview questions"[1] (in US law, at least) - assuming one gets a rejection from the company you have grounds to sue them for discrimination because they essentially asked questions they're not allowed to.
[1] https://www.betterteam.com/illegal-interview-questions
I recall a case around 8-10 years ago when an employer or university admissions dept forcefully asked someone for their Facebook username and password - she declined but offered to login on a computer in the office for them to see - which they agreed to, and her profile had details the interviewers were not legally entitled to receive, and she sued and she won... - or something. Does anyone else remember?
[1] https://www.betterteam.com/illegal-interview-questions
I recall a case around 8-10 years ago when an employer or university admissions dept forcefully asked someone for their Facebook username and password - she declined but offered to login on a computer in the office for them to see - which they agreed to, and her profile had details the interviewers were not legally entitled to receive, and she sued and she won... - or something. Does anyone else remember?
I'd ask them where I should report phishing attempts.
If said employer is asking for your private social media, then they're probably not worth working for anyway.
Tens of millions of people in the US alone don't have the privilege of being on the supply-side for a high-demand skillset. "they're probably not worth working for anyway" is not a reasonable nor helpful response to people in that situation.
That's a sad thing though, that people don't have enough leverage against their employer for more benefits.
I think this is what unions are for. Powerless alone but strong together.
I've been anti union for almost my entire life as you cannot really be a member of a union without at the same time supporting a number of unrelated cases that I disagree wildly with.
That said I am starting to feel that we could need something like unions, only they should avoid messing with international affairs, avoid supporting any political parties and stick to working for their members directly.
That said I am starting to feel that we could need something like unions, only they should avoid messing with international affairs, avoid supporting any political parties and stick to working for their members directly.
> avoid supporting any political parties
Unions represent their workers and by extension must advocate politically for workers' rights.
How can a union fight for workers' rights if they're barred from political activity?
If companies can engage in political activity, it follows that workers' unions are just as entitled.
Unions represent their workers and by extension must advocate politically for workers' rights.
How can a union fight for workers' rights if they're barred from political activity?
If companies can engage in political activity, it follows that workers' unions are just as entitled.
> How can a union fight for workers' rights if they're barred from political activity?
You are replying to something I didn't write.
I want them barred from supporting specific parties, not from influencing laws, negotiating, organizing, providing legal support etc.
Around here unions largely align with what is probably Labour elsewhere, which makes sense. But I personally feel I cannot in good conscience be found supporting someone who directly time and time again organizes boycotts against middle Easts only somehow working democracy.
I cannot live with supporting companies that are openly hostile to values I find important.
So I end up outside the unions, at least until someone creates one that promises to not do that.
> If companies can engage in political activity, it follows that workers' unions are just as entitled.
Yep. And that's ok. But I won't support them as long as they try to meddle in international affairs or even push national lawmaking in directions I think are abhorrent.
You are replying to something I didn't write.
I want them barred from supporting specific parties, not from influencing laws, negotiating, organizing, providing legal support etc.
Around here unions largely align with what is probably Labour elsewhere, which makes sense. But I personally feel I cannot in good conscience be found supporting someone who directly time and time again organizes boycotts against middle Easts only somehow working democracy.
I cannot live with supporting companies that are openly hostile to values I find important.
So I end up outside the unions, at least until someone creates one that promises to not do that.
> If companies can engage in political activity, it follows that workers' unions are just as entitled.
Yep. And that's ok. But I won't support them as long as they try to meddle in international affairs or even push national lawmaking in directions I think are abhorrent.
[deleted]
Social media accounts are not credentials, and that requirement is bogus for 99% of jobs unless your job is social media publicity
Call it "bogus" but the evidence suggests it's happening - most likely by old-world companies run by paternalistic owners big enough to care about their PR but not big enough to hire competent HR lawyers to advise them not to do that at all.
...otherwise we wouldn't have law bloggers writing articles like this: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-ask-pa...
...otherwise we wouldn't have law bloggers writing articles like this: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-ask-pa...
[deleted]
Forget about credentials, hiring someone is a risk and you basically go into it as an employer flying blind.
I request social media links (not passwords, just profile links) from everyone I'm considering hiring, because any/all information I can use to winnow potentially problem hires out before I make an offer is extremely valuable to me.
You can tell a lot about a person from their social media profiles and posts.
I request social media links (not passwords, just profile links) from everyone I'm considering hiring, because any/all information I can use to winnow potentially problem hires out before I make an offer is extremely valuable to me.
You can tell a lot about a person from their social media profiles and posts.
Is this satire? The fact that you even specify that you "do not ask for passwords" for social media accounts of potential hires, is sketchy as fuck.
I'm sorry for the desperate people that go along with this shit.
I wanted to clarify as there are reports of employers asking for people's social media login credentials (to log in as them and archive/review old/private posts) as a condition for hiring.
I think that's insane and abusive.
Asking to see someone's public webpage isn't.
I think that's insane and abusive.
Asking to see someone's public webpage isn't.
Do you drive by their home before hiring them? Maybe peek through the windows? Obviously you can’t ask for a key to their house, that would be insane and abusive. But anything you can see from the street is fair game, right?
If I thought that such public information would yield information useful to a hiring decision, relative to the time and resources required to obtain that information, then yes.
The exterior of someone's house isn't useful in hiring. Their thoughts and opinions they choose to publish to the billions on the internet generally are.
The exterior of someone's house isn't useful in hiring. Their thoughts and opinions they choose to publish to the billions on the internet generally are.
I'd say you could learn almost as much about a person by looking at their house as by looking at their profile on the internet (that is until they learn that you will check their house. Once something gets measured it stops being a good way to measure or something like that)
Edit: and I kind of agree with the others.
Edit: and I kind of agree with the others.
Do you even have social media accounts yourself? It seems very contradictory coming from someone who announced he is leaving LinkedIn and Twitter
I run a whole-ass BBS, several chat servers, and a mailing list, and have personal websites in the wayback machine going back to the 90s. I am extremely online.
I don't care to what degree you're online, I asked about social media accounts. If you yourself don't have them, it's weird you'd ask others for them.
[deleted]
> I request social media links (not passwords, just profile links) from everyone I'm considering hiring
I don't have a Facebook account, nor Instagram, but would my Fetlife profile be okay?
* If not, why is Fetlife exempt from your idea of what a social-network is?
* If so, what business does my employer have at all seeing my Fetlife account?
* If you decide not to hire me entirely on the basis that I have a Fetlife account then you're opening yourself up to an unlawful discrimination lawsuit.
I don't have a Facebook account, nor Instagram, but would my Fetlife profile be okay?
* If not, why is Fetlife exempt from your idea of what a social-network is?
* If so, what business does my employer have at all seeing my Fetlife account?
* If you decide not to hire me entirely on the basis that I have a Fetlife account then you're opening yourself up to an unlawful discrimination lawsuit.
Not having Facebook or Instagram accounts is a positive hiring signal for me. Having a Fetlife account, regardless of content, is another positive hiring signal for me. (I tend to preferentially hire nonconformists.)
Also, the last point is incorrect: being kinky is not a protected class, and one does not even need to be kinky to be on Fetlife. Not hiring someone because they are on Fetlife isn't protected class discrimination even if their Fetlife profile happened to disclose they are in a protected class. It's a social network like any other.
Interviewing someone opens oneself up to a potential lawsuit, period. Asking for information about a candidate that has nothing to do with membership in a protected class (such as "show me your public websites", which is what such a request amounts to) is no more risk than asking in what city someone went to university (the city for which, for example, could suggest they attended an HBCU). The whole process is fraught with risk; we should not allow that to prevent us from learning a detailed picture about a candidate's lifestyle and character (assiduously avoiding specifically seeking out information associated with protected class membership).
It's already common to ask for a LinkedIn or GitHub profile for hiring certain types of roles. There's no difference asking for Facebook or Instagram or Twitter.
Would you hire a photographer without seeing their Instagram?
It's also entirely legal to discriminate against someone for the specific set of social media services they do or do not have an account on, as long as they aren't serving as a proxy for protected class discrimination (eg ChristianMingle).
All of hiring is a process of discrimination: against the less skilled, less diligent, less suited to a particular job role. More information helps in that process. One has to always be careful to avoid discriminating against protected classes, but most attributes of most people, even outside of the professional sphere, are not protected and are legal and prudent grounds for hiring discrimination.
Also, the last point is incorrect: being kinky is not a protected class, and one does not even need to be kinky to be on Fetlife. Not hiring someone because they are on Fetlife isn't protected class discrimination even if their Fetlife profile happened to disclose they are in a protected class. It's a social network like any other.
Interviewing someone opens oneself up to a potential lawsuit, period. Asking for information about a candidate that has nothing to do with membership in a protected class (such as "show me your public websites", which is what such a request amounts to) is no more risk than asking in what city someone went to university (the city for which, for example, could suggest they attended an HBCU). The whole process is fraught with risk; we should not allow that to prevent us from learning a detailed picture about a candidate's lifestyle and character (assiduously avoiding specifically seeking out information associated with protected class membership).
It's already common to ask for a LinkedIn or GitHub profile for hiring certain types of roles. There's no difference asking for Facebook or Instagram or Twitter.
Would you hire a photographer without seeing their Instagram?
It's also entirely legal to discriminate against someone for the specific set of social media services they do or do not have an account on, as long as they aren't serving as a proxy for protected class discrimination (eg ChristianMingle).
All of hiring is a process of discrimination: against the less skilled, less diligent, less suited to a particular job role. More information helps in that process. One has to always be careful to avoid discriminating against protected classes, but most attributes of most people, even outside of the professional sphere, are not protected and are legal and prudent grounds for hiring discrimination.
> There's no difference asking for Facebook or Instagram or Twitter.
LinkedIn is a professional networking - and resume/CV hosting site. Facebook and Instgram are for friends, family, hobbies, and the like. They're worlds apart and it's intellectually dishonest of you to equate them.
> Would you hire a photographer without seeing their Instagram?
No, I wouldn't. Instagram isn't Flickr, deviantArt, nor their professional portfolio.
LinkedIn is a professional networking - and resume/CV hosting site. Facebook and Instgram are for friends, family, hobbies, and the like. They're worlds apart and it's intellectually dishonest of you to equate them.
> Would you hire a photographer without seeing their Instagram?
No, I wouldn't. Instagram isn't Flickr, deviantArt, nor their professional portfolio.
> They're worlds apart and it's intellectually dishonest of you to equate them.
Absolutely not; public webpages are public webpages. What someone chooses to publish, and where, is an important measure of their personality and attitude.
Absolutely not; public webpages are public webpages. What someone chooses to publish, and where, is an important measure of their personality and attitude.
Facebook profiles aren't necessarily public. If I have a private Facebook account that's reserved solely for family matters, what right do you as a prospective employer have to expect to see it?
- I see your point is based on the notion that "if it's public in one space, you intend for it to be public in all spaces in your life" - but that's an incorrect assumption: Fetlife profiles aren't "public" (insofar as Google can't see them), and I don't have my real-life name on it, and I certainly don't intend to share it with anyone whom I want to maintain a strict separation from my private life.
Am I not entitled to a private life? What right do you have to enter my private life?
Can I see your Fetlife account? Can I see inside your house from the street-level windows? Can I bring a ladder to the side of your house and peer into your upstairs bedroom? Where's the limit for you?
- I see your point is based on the notion that "if it's public in one space, you intend for it to be public in all spaces in your life" - but that's an incorrect assumption: Fetlife profiles aren't "public" (insofar as Google can't see them), and I don't have my real-life name on it, and I certainly don't intend to share it with anyone whom I want to maintain a strict separation from my private life.
Am I not entitled to a private life? What right do you have to enter my private life?
Can I see your Fetlife account? Can I see inside your house from the street-level windows? Can I bring a ladder to the side of your house and peer into your upstairs bedroom? Where's the limit for you?
As I mentioned, I don't ask for passwords, and I don't have an FB account myself to "friend" anyone. Any information they don't publish to the whole world isn't my concern.
I am talking about public webpages.
As for my Fetlife account, my username is the same there as it is here, and on IRC, and on Wikipedia, and on GitHub, et c.
I have blackout treatments on my windows.
The aptitude for being aware of what is or isn't public/published is something I hire for, too. Then again, I work with data and customers that live and die by such things.
I am talking about public webpages.
As for my Fetlife account, my username is the same there as it is here, and on IRC, and on Wikipedia, and on GitHub, et c.
I have blackout treatments on my windows.
The aptitude for being aware of what is or isn't public/published is something I hire for, too. Then again, I work with data and customers that live and die by such things.
Whatever happened to interviews and CVs? Since when must employers do incursions into private lives of their prospective employees in order to sign off on a hire?
This sounds like a recipe for discrimination claims.
> future employer asks to see some social credentials
So it's no longer enough to just keep your "wrong" opinions to yourself, you have to actually prove that you have the "right" opinions. Enjoy having the right opinions at the moment, I guess - until fashions change, anyway.
So it's no longer enough to just keep your "wrong" opinions to yourself, you have to actually prove that you have the "right" opinions. Enjoy having the right opinions at the moment, I guess - until fashions change, anyway.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the employer is asking about this, it's to make sure that you don't post anything stupid that would get them on the wrong side of the in-group. If you were in this position, your tepid kid and travel photos would get a passing grade.
>"The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency was distressed to discover this morning, January 25th, that one of our agents has been using the social media platforms Gab and Parler. We do not condone this activity, and we apologize to anyone who has been affected or offended by this"
This honestly reads like satire. Why were they "distressed" by this and who could possibly be affected or offended by something so trivial?
This honestly reads like satire. Why were they "distressed" by this and who could possibly be affected or offended by something so trivial?
These platforms are seen as far right and extremist by a lot of people. Whether or not that assessment is accurate, it will distress a lot of people who do agree with that assessment.
Depending on the demographics of the authors they represent, it may well be a significant negative for their business to be associated with those platforms.
Depending on the demographics of the authors they represent, it may well be a significant negative for their business to be associated with those platforms.
A lot of people being the media in the US that pushes the narrative to the extreme. You could make the argument ( perhaps weakly for Parler now) that they are right leaning social platforms that contain extremes. The same way Twitter is left leaning and contains left and right extremes.
Companies in the states appear to wear their political allegiances as a badge of honour eliciting an us-or-them reaction. Left and Right ideologies often have wants which flip from side to side, generation to generation.
It's worrying and baffling that someone's source of income can be severed when there has been no evidence of misconduct.
Companies in the states appear to wear their political allegiances as a badge of honour eliciting an us-or-them reaction. Left and Right ideologies often have wants which flip from side to side, generation to generation.
It's worrying and baffling that someone's source of income can be severed when there has been no evidence of misconduct.
> It's worrying and baffling that someone's source of income can be severed when there has been no evidence of misconduct.
You have zero idea what evidence there is and isn't. The evidence has not been revealed by those involved, and it certainly hasn't been published in this short article you just read.
You just assumed that "she used two sites" was the absolute entirety of the story.
You have zero idea what evidence there is and isn't. The evidence has not been revealed by those involved, and it certainly hasn't been published in this short article you just read.
You just assumed that "she used two sites" was the absolute entirety of the story.
The agency president tweeted in now-deleted tweets that Colleen was fired for using conservative platforms and that they do not condone this activity. Followed by an apology for any offence caused.
If there was further evidence she did not feel the need to disclose further. However it does appear that mentioning the association was enough justification.
Also the complaints that were aired didn't provide any further evidence other than the fact that she was on the platform. Again only providing the association as the source of the concern.
How do we get from that to a very public firing over a space of a few hours? More evidence may come to light but there are several things very problematic about this.
If there was further evidence she did not feel the need to disclose further. However it does appear that mentioning the association was enough justification.
Also the complaints that were aired didn't provide any further evidence other than the fact that she was on the platform. Again only providing the association as the source of the concern.
How do we get from that to a very public firing over a space of a few hours? More evidence may come to light but there are several things very problematic about this.
There's a lot hiding in that one word, "using".
What exactly were they "used" for?
What exactly were they "used" for?
> It's worrying and baffling that someone's source of income can be severed when there has been no evidence of misconduct.
Indeed workers rights in the US are among the weakest in the developed world. As shocked as I was at the weak protections in the UK when I moved here, even the UK is magnitudes better in this respect.
Yet this kind of worker hostile environment is what US voters keeps voting for.
Indeed workers rights in the US are among the weakest in the developed world. As shocked as I was at the weak protections in the UK when I moved here, even the UK is magnitudes better in this respect.
Yet this kind of worker hostile environment is what US voters keeps voting for.
> It's worrying and baffling that someone's source of income can be severed when there has been no evidence of misconduct.
Isn't this a feature of at will employment?. I know there are some protected attributes, but I was under the impression you could be fired for pretty much anything outside of those protected attributes.
Isn't this a feature of at will employment?. I know there are some protected attributes, but I was under the impression you could be fired for pretty much anything outside of those protected attributes.
> These platforms are seen as far right and extremist by a lot of people.
How did these people get so radicalized such that speech they don't like is "extremist"?
The same kind of people were saying its fine if you get deplatformed from Twitter, but now want to ostracize you for using the alternatives.
How did these people get so radicalized such that speech they don't like is "extremist"?
The same kind of people were saying its fine if you get deplatformed from Twitter, but now want to ostracize you for using the alternatives.
I thought it was going to turn out that the employee was making bad posts, but from the quote by De Chiara, it's simply because the agent was even on those platforms at all.
My surprise lessened after I Googled the name of the agency. It seems like De Chiara has been flippant with her business partners in the past:
https://www.deangoodman.com/jennifer-de-chiara/
My surprise lessened after I Googled the name of the agency. It seems like De Chiara has been flippant with her business partners in the past:
https://www.deangoodman.com/jennifer-de-chiara/
The email exchange is surreal.
Goodman: [...] If you could represent our interests “enthusiastically,” per our deal – and honestly – that would be appreciated. We’ve all worked too hard to see this fall apart now. Dean Goodman.
De Chiara: [...] I don’t appreciate your attitude. I don’t deserve it... Just read your email again–now you’re calling me dishonest? Go to hell.
Goodman: [...] If you could represent our interests “enthusiastically,” per our deal – and honestly – that would be appreciated. We’ve all worked too hard to see this fall apart now. Dean Goodman.
De Chiara: [...] I don’t appreciate your attitude. I don’t deserve it... Just read your email again–now you’re calling me dishonest? Go to hell.
The most deadliest thing about Tech companies is how massive they are and going about their merry things while little ants like us get squished left and right.
Also the whole cancel culture is crazy since it’s so trigger happy. In many ways it feels like a witch hunt. Someone says something, the crowd follows (without much evidence) and makes a ton of noise on social media. The companies see a hit on their brand and do whatever the mob is asking and pretend to be the good guys/girls.
We really do need a society that encourages fact checking and hearing both sides of the story. Amplifying filter bubbles doesn’t end well for our society.
Also the whole cancel culture is crazy since it’s so trigger happy. In many ways it feels like a witch hunt. Someone says something, the crowd follows (without much evidence) and makes a ton of noise on social media. The companies see a hit on their brand and do whatever the mob is asking and pretend to be the good guys/girls.
We really do need a society that encourages fact checking and hearing both sides of the story. Amplifying filter bubbles doesn’t end well for our society.
> Also the whole cancel culture is crazy since it’s so trigger happy.
I have given this a great deal of thought and I'm still torn on what to believe. On one hand, everyone wants to be judge, jury, and executioner. This means that the power the state has to determine these things is eroded. Probably as a result of the general loss of trust in institutions.
On the other hand, the United States specifically has a long history of what is considered community justice. Often this happens when the institutions to provide it do not exist yet or fail in their goals.
Similar to losing any kind of arbiter of truth, we are also losing truth in justice. Truth takes time, the mob is fickle, and the pitchforks are heavy.
I have given this a great deal of thought and I'm still torn on what to believe. On one hand, everyone wants to be judge, jury, and executioner. This means that the power the state has to determine these things is eroded. Probably as a result of the general loss of trust in institutions.
On the other hand, the United States specifically has a long history of what is considered community justice. Often this happens when the institutions to provide it do not exist yet or fail in their goals.
Similar to losing any kind of arbiter of truth, we are also losing truth in justice. Truth takes time, the mob is fickle, and the pitchforks are heavy.
There certainly wasn't this hysteria about cancel culture when it was solely the tool of large, well-funded conservative and religious organisations - Mothers Against Dungeons & Dragons is the example that comes to mind for me immediately from when I was younger.
Now that just any old pleb can express an opinion on the actions and comments of their betters it seems that collective expressions of disapproval with the intent of exerting power is a bad thing!
"Cancelling" is a boycott in the marketplace of ideas. The left and the right should find something to appeal to them there!
Now that just any old pleb can express an opinion on the actions and comments of their betters it seems that collective expressions of disapproval with the intent of exerting power is a bad thing!
"Cancelling" is a boycott in the marketplace of ideas. The left and the right should find something to appeal to them there!
At this point, companies might as well just have an explicit policy of not hiring anyone registered as a Republican. Party affiliation is not a protected class, after all.
> Party affiliation is not a protected class, after all.
In California, it actually is.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/07/26/laws-protecting-private...
In California, it actually is.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/07/26/laws-protecting-private...
At least in California, you cannot be fired for your political view.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
Tell that to James Damore.
James Damore’s views (regardless if they are right or wrong) don’t seem to be covered by California laws:
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...
> California Labor Code section 1101 prohibits employers from implementing any rule, regulation, or policy "forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office" or "controlling or directing or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees."
>
> California Labor Code section 1102 provides "[n]o employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity." To this end, employers cannot enact policies limiting employees' political activities or affiliations or in essence force employees to follow the employer's political leanings.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...
> California Labor Code section 1101 prohibits employers from implementing any rule, regulation, or policy "forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office" or "controlling or directing or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees."
>
> California Labor Code section 1102 provides "[n]o employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity." To this end, employers cannot enact policies limiting employees' political activities or affiliations or in essence force employees to follow the employer's political leanings.
... or Brendan Eich
Neither was race not so long ago.
This feels a bit snarky.
There seems to me, looking at all of this US hyperpartisan nonsense as an outsider, to be quite a bit of difference between the frothy Gab/Parler/etc contingent and an average median republican (who I don't really imagine spends a ton of time on niche social media).
There seems to me, looking at all of this US hyperpartisan nonsense as an outsider, to be quite a bit of difference between the frothy Gab/Parler/etc contingent and an average median republican (who I don't really imagine spends a ton of time on niche social media).
[deleted]
She wasn't fired for what she'd posted on those sites, though. She was fired for simply having an account.
They're quick to tell on themselves. When Biden condemned white supremacy, a lot of conservative leaders were outraged at the attack against them: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/why-are-conservative....
It's because conservatives see rhetoric about "white supremacy" as a weak man argument used against them. They don't believe themselves to be white supremacists. It's kind of like centrist Democrats being annoyed when conservatives call them socialists and communists. To see this as telling on themselves in this context is a bit like McCarthy saying only a communist would deny being a communist.
What percentage of Republicans are the stereotype Parler user?
If you were a rabid QAnon nut, why should I hire you? Saying republican is this context is just driving the wedge in too far.
If you were a rabid QAnon nut, why should I hire you? Saying republican is this context is just driving the wedge in too far.
In other words, stereotypes are obviously fun if it is me, an enlightened person, doing them...
I had a Parler login since July. Mostly out of curiosity and just to read/lurk. There was a very vocal loony subset, but that is the Internet for you.
Kicking people out of work for visiting a hacking forum is about same. After all, for the general public, hacking sounds like crime and sometimes actually is. People who deliberately choose to associate themselve with hackers are not to be trusted, or?
I had a Parler login since July. Mostly out of curiosity and just to read/lurk. There was a very vocal loony subset, but that is the Internet for you.
Kicking people out of work for visiting a hacking forum is about same. After all, for the general public, hacking sounds like crime and sometimes actually is. People who deliberately choose to associate themselve with hackers are not to be trusted, or?
> There was a very vocal loony subset, but that is the Internet for you.
No. This attitude has to stop. Having nazis and far-right extremists being vocal on your site is not "the internet for you".
It is a deliberate choice by whoever runs the site to be a welcoming home for the vilest voices.
No. This attitude has to stop. Having nazis and far-right extremists being vocal on your site is not "the internet for you".
It is a deliberate choice by whoever runs the site to be a welcoming home for the vilest voices.
For me, this is the Internet. It is an unwelcome, but arguably useful X-ray of the society.
I believe that erasing such people from a worldwide forum veers dangerously close to covering an alarm signal on your car's dashboard with black tape because it is annoying and life feels better without worrying about what might be happening under the hood.
I prefer living my life without illusions about the rest of humanity, doubly so in politics.
I believe that erasing such people from a worldwide forum veers dangerously close to covering an alarm signal on your car's dashboard with black tape because it is annoying and life feels better without worrying about what might be happening under the hood.
I prefer living my life without illusions about the rest of humanity, doubly so in politics.
No. Letting hate like this fester is more like not treating a disease even when you see the symptoms, and arguing that it is better to know the disease is there. It makes no sense.
This kind of hate SPREADS. Letting it be normalises it, and lets it spread. The antidote to this kind of thing is for the rest of society to loudly and clearly reject it, and make it very obvious it is not acceptable.
Letting people keep spreading their hate does the exact opposite.
This kind of hate SPREADS. Letting it be normalises it, and lets it spread. The antidote to this kind of thing is for the rest of society to loudly and clearly reject it, and make it very obvious it is not acceptable.
Letting people keep spreading their hate does the exact opposite.
Hate is a mania, a meme that infects the host. It isn't just for us that we seek to stop it, but for the infected as well.
Yes, this is also a very valid way to look at it.
Judging by Dr. King's philosophy, it would seem that covering up, censoring, and cancelling hateful people is the same as covering up a boil and letting it fester.
"We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."
"We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."
You are missing the "and dealt with". It needs to be dealt with.
Exposing it does not deal with it. It just gives it more air to spread. You actually need the dealing with part.
Exposing it does not deal with it. It just gives it more air to spread. You actually need the dealing with part.
>You are missing the "and dealt with".
What makes you think that?
It's literally in the quote.
Covering up hatred is not dealing with it, it's a facile attempt at ignoring it.
What makes you think that?
It's literally in the quote.
Covering up hatred is not dealing with it, it's a facile attempt at ignoring it.
Yes, it is in his quote.
It is nowhere to be seen in today's world, though. You're here talking about letting the nazis spread their hatred as much as they want, but I am not seeing you having any plan for how to dealing with them, other than just letting them do whatever they want.
Once you let them out, what are you planning to do to deal with them?
It is nowhere to be seen in today's world, though. You're here talking about letting the nazis spread their hatred as much as they want, but I am not seeing you having any plan for how to dealing with them, other than just letting them do whatever they want.
Once you let them out, what are you planning to do to deal with them?
>It is nowhere to be seen in today's world, though.
Hatred is very difficult to confront effectively. It requires inner strength and a great capacity for love. So many people lack that and just default to mirroring that hatred back at the hater, or just try to cover it up and ignore it.
It's hard to see things when you don't want to see them.
>Once you let them out, what are you planning to do to deal with them?
If you want a "plan" then simply study the philosophy and history of Dr. King.
Here's a great place to start:
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/lov...
Hatred is very difficult to confront effectively. It requires inner strength and a great capacity for love. So many people lack that and just default to mirroring that hatred back at the hater, or just try to cover it up and ignore it.
It's hard to see things when you don't want to see them.
>Once you let them out, what are you planning to do to deal with them?
If you want a "plan" then simply study the philosophy and history of Dr. King.
Here's a great place to start:
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/lov...
No, I want to hear what YOUR plan is.
>There was a very vocal loony subset, but that is the Internet for you.
Yeah, no. I am actually amazed the platform lived as long as it did because there was no opposition to members voicing death threats against politicians/activists/what have you. No moderation to keep those in check.
Outside some Neonazi sites, I've never seen anything like it, some Islamist sites probably are similar.
Yeah, no. I am actually amazed the platform lived as long as it did because there was no opposition to members voicing death threats against politicians/activists/what have you. No moderation to keep those in check.
Outside some Neonazi sites, I've never seen anything like it, some Islamist sites probably are similar.
From what I have seen and remember, Gab was much, much worse. Especially the level of antisemitism was off the charts. On Parler, you could meet Jewish intellectuals. I do not remember seeing one on Gab during the few hours I spent there.
Parler also had multiple communities depending on language. The Czech community of early 2021 was nowhere as wild as the American one at the same time. We are not close to any election now, though; this might have had a cooling effct.
Parler also had multiple communities depending on language. The Czech community of early 2021 was nowhere as wild as the American one at the same time. We are not close to any election now, though; this might have had a cooling effct.
The better question is what percentage of Parler users fit the stereotype?
Based on what I've seen and people I know who were active on Gab and Parler I would venture to say it's not nearly as high as people think. The amount of people with truly fringe beliefs is pretty small, even when concentrated.
Based on what I've seen and people I know who were active on Gab and Parler I would venture to say it's not nearly as high as people think. The amount of people with truly fringe beliefs is pretty small, even when concentrated.
> The amount of people with truly fringe beliefs is pretty small, even when concentrated.
And I'd personally much rather have this small group of people outletting their anger onto the internet instead of IRL.
Pushing them further and further into a corner with ever expanding censorship and expecting them to become good tolerant citizens has always seemed like a fools game to me.
And I'd personally much rather have this small group of people outletting their anger onto the internet instead of IRL.
Pushing them further and further into a corner with ever expanding censorship and expecting them to become good tolerant citizens has always seemed like a fools game to me.
> And I’d personally much rather have this small group of people outletting their anger onto the internet instead of IRL.
Venting anger on the internet and it producing no real change isn’t an “outlet”, its just a pressure cooker.
> Pushing them further and further into a corner with ever expanding censorship and expecting them to become good tolerant citizens has always seemed like a fools game to me.
Containing the various white supremacist / conspiracy cults isn’t about reforming them, its about reducing their ability to recruit and radicalize. While reforming those already in the cults would be nice, its mostly a lost cause. They aren’t, for the most part, going to become “good, tolerant citizens”.
Venting anger on the internet and it producing no real change isn’t an “outlet”, its just a pressure cooker.
> Pushing them further and further into a corner with ever expanding censorship and expecting them to become good tolerant citizens has always seemed like a fools game to me.
Containing the various white supremacist / conspiracy cults isn’t about reforming them, its about reducing their ability to recruit and radicalize. While reforming those already in the cults would be nice, its mostly a lost cause. They aren’t, for the most part, going to become “good, tolerant citizens”.
That was the right frame of thinking before "onto the internet" came to mean "with the capability to reach, engage and influence millions of normal people".
Also, receiving thousands of threats and being doxed "onto the internet" has very serious consequences IRL.
Also, receiving thousands of threats and being doxed "onto the internet" has very serious consequences IRL.
That distinction collapsed a long time ago, before the Internet stormed the Capitol.
> And I'd personally much rather have this small group of people outletting their anger onto the internet instead of IRL
IRL they're limited physically to whoever they can reach; online they can make their hate travel the world ( point in case, there were QAnon related actions in Germany! If the Q people had been purely IRL that would have never happened)
IRL they're limited physically to whoever they can reach; online they can make their hate travel the world ( point in case, there were QAnon related actions in Germany! If the Q people had been purely IRL that would have never happened)
I can't speak to Parler as I never checked it (and can't now), but I just checked the Gab homepage and I encountered anti-vaxx, anti-Catholicism, QAnon, and election fraud nonsense. This is just the frontpage: no cherry-picking. There is nothing outright illegal on the homepage, but it's also not a good look to be honest.
Aside: Gab is horrible technically speaking; Firefox uses my full CPU :-/
Aside: Gab is horrible technically speaking; Firefox uses my full CPU :-/
You shouldn’t know and especially shouldn’t care if your prospective employee is “a rabid QAnon nut” or a crazy Bukharin-loving anarchist.
As pointed out below, there are some states where politics are protected. I looked it up because I do plan to use that information in hiring decisions going forward.
I wouldn't surprised if I get downvoted for this, but I intend to ask anyone I interview in the future (not currently in a role that involves hiring) if they voted for Trump in 2020. And a yes will be a disqualifying answer on the basis of poor judgement. (It's also a question I will be asking any potential employer I interview with, going forward, for the same reason.)
Yes, I will lose some diversity of thought as a result. Yes it means I can't hire employees in California. Yes, there will be potential bad PR. No, I won't feel guilty about it at all. And yes, I will also run it by appropriate lawyers before actually implementing it.
I wouldn't surprised if I get downvoted for this, but I intend to ask anyone I interview in the future (not currently in a role that involves hiring) if they voted for Trump in 2020. And a yes will be a disqualifying answer on the basis of poor judgement. (It's also a question I will be asking any potential employer I interview with, going forward, for the same reason.)
Yes, I will lose some diversity of thought as a result. Yes it means I can't hire employees in California. Yes, there will be potential bad PR. No, I won't feel guilty about it at all. And yes, I will also run it by appropriate lawyers before actually implementing it.
Something to ponder given the topic of this thread... your comment says very clearly that you're willing to make decisions which impact a company negatively, provided they benefit you emotionally. That's disqualifying for most positions involving hiring or any other management responsibility, and it's connected to your real identity.
"Impact a company negatively" is your opinion as much as the reversal seems to be the opinion of the parent commentor.
It’s not an opinion, it’s basic logic and arithmetic. Shrinking the hiring pool by eliminating both Trump voters and also the non-Trump voters who don’t like the implications of the question. That’s a very large negative and is based on math, not opinion.
I'm not sure that I share the assumptions here about the distribution of talent throughout the American voting population, in particular given that the venn diagram of the tech hiring pool and the American voting population is not a circle.
Make a list of the distinct demographic categories in your hiring pool, ordered by size. You may be surprised. Depending on location and role, “Trump Voter and offended non-Trump Voter” could easily be second only to “Male non-Trump voter”, i.e. ahead of “Female non-Trump voter”. In many places it would certainly be the largest distinct demographic. That should give you pause.
Unless you define “tech hiring pool” as “recent college grads living in the Bay Area”. But even there the numbers are material.
Unless you define “tech hiring pool” as “recent college grads living in the Bay Area”. But even there the numbers are material.
LarvaFX(1)
It may not have been clear from my comment, but it’s not an emotional benefit for me. And I don’t agree that it’s necessarily a net negative for the company. There are a lot of factors that impact a company’s overall performance.
If it’s not an emotional benefit, what are your rational grounds for this? You propose to exclude tens of millions of people because you believe their vote proves they have poor judgement. Yet you are displaying poor judgment by making this proposal.
For what it's worth, as an engineering candidate being asked that question would disqualify the asking company from consideration. I do not want to work at a company that is so politically active that the question is allowed. I would also tell my point of contact exactly why I was withdrawing my candidacy and who was responsible.
That’s totally reasonable. And there are companies that have publicly taken positions that align with this.
It wasn’t clear in my comment, but I’m not presenting this from a middle management perspective. I wouldn’t arbitrarily be adding new requirements to some employer’s hiring. This is me speaking about how I’ll act for any company I start next (having been a founder and CEO before).
It wasn’t clear in my comment, but I’m not presenting this from a middle management perspective. I wouldn’t arbitrarily be adding new requirements to some employer’s hiring. This is me speaking about how I’ll act for any company I start next (having been a founder and CEO before).
> It's also a question I will be asking any potential employer I interview with, going forward, for the same reason.
This would be a very strange question to be asked of an interviewer.
> Yes it means I can't hire employees in California
Per the article I linked to up-thread, it's not just CA:
California, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, West Virginia, Seattle, Ann Arbor, and Madison.
Maybe you don't care about some of those locations, but CA, CO, and Seattle seem like pretty important ones in the tech world.
This would be a very strange question to be asked of an interviewer.
> Yes it means I can't hire employees in California
Per the article I linked to up-thread, it's not just CA:
California, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, West Virginia, Seattle, Ann Arbor, and Madison.
Maybe you don't care about some of those locations, but CA, CO, and Seattle seem like pretty important ones in the tech world.
It would be a strange question, depending on the scenario. You can imagine I probably don’t anticipate being in interviews where I’m asking that of somebody who isn’t the primary executive. (In other words, I wouldn’t want to work under someone whose judgement I don’t trust, and this would be a dealbreaker on judgement.)
You’re correct that it rules out some important locations in tech, and I do think geography will continue to matter to a degree.
I think there’s also some appeal to a company that has strong, publicly stated principles that can benefit recruiting, but it remains to be seen. But when I consider potential future ventures, these are things I’ve considered and intend to apply.
You’re correct that it rules out some important locations in tech, and I do think geography will continue to matter to a degree.
I think there’s also some appeal to a company that has strong, publicly stated principles that can benefit recruiting, but it remains to be seen. But when I consider potential future ventures, these are things I’ve considered and intend to apply.
IMO it would show exceedingly bad judgment to ask someone how they voted in an interview. I wouldn’t categorically refuse to hire such a person, but it would be a strike against.
I understand that perspective, but it doesn't affect my position. I'm free to choose who I work for, and I wouldn't choose to work for someone who found the question disqualifying. I get to define my own utility function.
Sure, you're free to choose your employer however you wish, and there are plenty of tech companies whose executives didn't vote for Trump.
But you may find that many executives — including those who did not vote for Trump — are not interested in hiring people who believe they are entitled to know how their colleagues/bosses voted.
But you may find that many executives — including those who did not vote for Trump — are not interested in hiring people who believe they are entitled to know how their colleagues/bosses voted.
Sure, I won't argue that. But it's another useful filter for me.
The reason the secret ballot is even a thing is exactly because of people like you. Thank goodness you aren't in a role that involves hiring given such politicisation of the hiring process. I sincerely hope you never get such a position again.
You should probably put that on your job-listing ads!
Also, how do you plan on phrasing the question? And if you're not fully within the power to "disqualify" the candidate, what other steps are you planning on taking to prevent them from being hired by your employer? Have you discussed it yet with your employer's HR department yet?
Also, how do you plan on phrasing the question? And if you're not fully within the power to "disqualify" the candidate, what other steps are you planning on taking to prevent them from being hired by your employer? Have you discussed it yet with your employer's HR department yet?
Ha, yes, the intent is that it would be an open and stated part of the hiring process. There's no reason to surprise people with the question. I'd rather let candidates self-select them out, as much for this question as for any other mis-alignments.
I did a poor job in my first comment of explaining my role relative to hiring. I'm speaking from a position of having been a founder and CEO, and likely being one again. The question about how this would play it with HR is understood, but isn't applicable to me personally. I believe (as I suspect you do) that in most organizations, this would be a hard thing to instill retroactively or individually and would meet lots of resistance, unless it were a very philosophically aligned company.
I did a poor job in my first comment of explaining my role relative to hiring. I'm speaking from a position of having been a founder and CEO, and likely being one again. The question about how this would play it with HR is understood, but isn't applicable to me personally. I believe (as I suspect you do) that in most organizations, this would be a hard thing to instill retroactively or individually and would meet lots of resistance, unless it were a very philosophically aligned company.
Would you consider listing this preference on your linked-in profile then? It's the same deal as a job ad.
If I were looking for work, I would consider it.
I'd genuinely recommend just letting such things be a permanent fixture of your profile. It would save you a lot of headaches and wasted time dealing with people who'd ultimately not want to interact with you, and likewise with whom you'd not want to interact.
[deleted]
This new wave of McCarthyism is really exciting from a historical perspective. And, you know, perversely, my long-standing belief that so many "historical" victims are eager to strap on the jackboots themselves gets yet another data point.
that's because victim/oppressor is a false dichotomy. the true dichotomy is friend/enemy
um, in-group/out-group ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_and_out-group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_and_out-group
The political philosophers got there before social psychologists https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schmitt/
“the specific political distinction … is that between friend and enemy.”
“the specific political distinction … is that between friend and enemy.”
Today's Red Guards will never achieve this level of self-awareness:
"Hans, are we the baddies?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWvpvlT9pJU
"Hans, are we the baddies?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWvpvlT9pJU
That statement by De Chiara is going to cost them a lot of money as that statement is prima facie a violation of any number of employment laws. If had identified specifically objectionable content, it would at least be a case.
Which law does it violate? I can’t think of any.
The fired agent telegraphed which law she believed has been violated when she said, "I just got fired because I'm a Christian and a conservative."
https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination
https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination
She can say what she wants.
Is being active on Gab and Parler a Christian religious activity?
Is being active on Gab and Parler a Christian religious activity?
Political affiliation is not a protected class.
Being "a Christian" (whatever that means...) is a protected class - but where in the Bible did Moses or Jesus command people to use Gab, Parler - or even be "conservative"?
You can be fired for being a selfish ass (I'm referring to the donkey hybrid, as befits the biblical narrative) - and that's my interpretation of what happened. What matters now is if the law will allow her to use her religion as the basis for being an ass - or not.
Being "a Christian" (whatever that means...) is a protected class - but where in the Bible did Moses or Jesus command people to use Gab, Parler - or even be "conservative"?
You can be fired for being a selfish ass (I'm referring to the donkey hybrid, as befits the biblical narrative) - and that's my interpretation of what happened. What matters now is if the law will allow her to use her religion as the basis for being an ass - or not.
> Political affiliation is not a protected class.
It is in California (and various other states).
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/07/26/laws-protecting-private...
It is in California (and various other states).
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/07/26/laws-protecting-private...
Huh, TIL!
An employee can claim that politics, affiliation, etc. was a pretext for firing based on religious beliefs.
Given that this statement is false — "Gab and Parler are religious social networks" — a judge would likely require a pattern of hostility to be shown, or for the firings to coincide with expression of protected religious beliefs that are not also considered hate speech. (If they're considered hate speech, they're no longer protected expression, regardless of whether they're claimed to be religion or not.)
You know this how?
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri...
Specifically: “ Even if you work in a state that doesn’t protect employees from political discrimination, you might still have a legal claim if your employer’s actions were really based on a protected trait under Title VII or a similar state law. For example, if African American employees are fired for participating in a Black Lives Matter rally, but employees of other races are not fired for going to marches, rallies, or protests, that might qualify as illegal race discrimination. ”
You don’t have enough information to say either way, and the law and courts aren’t as cut-and-dry as you want to believe.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri...
Specifically: “ Even if you work in a state that doesn’t protect employees from political discrimination, you might still have a legal claim if your employer’s actions were really based on a protected trait under Title VII or a similar state law. For example, if African American employees are fired for participating in a Black Lives Matter rally, but employees of other races are not fired for going to marches, rallies, or protests, that might qualify as illegal race discrimination. ”
You don’t have enough information to say either way, and the law and courts aren’t as cut-and-dry as you want to believe.
We’re making the same point. They have to show that there was discrimination against protected beliefs. The employer’s currently-stated position does not meet that bar. If the ex-employee has evidence that hasn’t been published by the employer, then they could win in court, if they can convince the court that their evidence is sound.
Looks like it. I never implied that it was automatic, but it’s the details that will make/break the case, if it were to go to court.
Even the social media choices may be subject, because it may depend largely on how the employer perceived it at the time.
Even the social media choices may be subject, because it may depend largely on how the employer perceived it at the time.
[deleted]
Say you refuse to hire or fire people from a predominantly black neighborhood — not because they're black, but based on the neighborhood — it's pretty accepted these days that that's discriminatory and not allowed.
But now liberals here are saying that refusing to hire or firing people from a predominantly Republican and/or Christian social network is different.
It's the same. That position is hypocritical regardless of whether you think it should be legal.
But now liberals here are saying that refusing to hire or firing people from a predominantly Republican and/or Christian social network is different.
It's the same. That position is hypocritical regardless of whether you think it should be legal.
You haven’t established that the real reason was her religion - rather than it being anything else.
Selfish ass? You have made an allegation about this person's character which does not appear to have supporting evidence, either in the article posted or any other source.
Did you miss the part where they use Gab and Parker?
> You have made an allegation about this person's character which does not appear to have supporting evidence, either in the article posted or any other source
Correct.
However, given the wider social context I’m making an inference from the facts that are established.
Correct.
However, given the wider social context I’m making an inference from the facts that are established.
The USA had always had a tendency towards witch hunts.
And that's exactly whats happening now.
I'm not saying that there aren't people that had it coming, but it's never a good idea to switch your brain off and run with the crowd.
And that's exactly whats happening now.
I'm not saying that there aren't people that had it coming, but it's never a good idea to switch your brain off and run with the crowd.
Frequently I feel that there is a conflation of the inherent attributes of a platform like Gab or Parler, and its user base. Though they may pitch themselves at a certian audience, social media platforms don't ultimately get to choose their users, and I'm not sure to what extent it is fair to judge them by their users. If we do judge them by their users (and I don't mean to sound like I'm criticizing Gab/Parler users here, it's entirely hypothetical) then you can have perverse outcomes, eg one way to shut down a social media site would be to have bots purporting to be, say, militia members spam it with messages. I've not done a great deal of research, but prima facie it seems like Parler actually had some quite attractive inherent characteristics, eg they were good on privacy and didn't monetize your data. On the other hand, to say that something like 4chan is inherently neutral and that the demographic of their users is nothing to do with them feels like it's taking the arguemnt too far.
> social media platforms don't ultimately get to choose their users
Of course they can.
They simply ban/allow people until they get the mix of people they want. It happens all the time on Reddit e.g. /r/the_donald, /r/conspiracy.
Of course they can.
They simply ban/allow people until they get the mix of people they want. It happens all the time on Reddit e.g. /r/the_donald, /r/conspiracy.
I think those were subreddits, not users.
Right, so it's a bit more coarse then banning or allowing users, but if you selectively ban or allow topics that certain kinds of users want to talk about (or don't want talked about), you can definitely shape your user base.
Selective banning carried out by reacting to infractions is is a relatively coarse tool compared to whitelisting a set of users on the basis of credentials or avowed common interest.
>whitelisting a set of users on the basis of credentials or avowed common interest.
Like r/the_donald. Mods can effectively whitelist a set of users by banning everyone else.
Like r/the_donald. Mods can effectively whitelist a set of users by banning everyone else.
> The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong.
From SlateStarCodex: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ...
From SlateStarCodex: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ...
Well, in the case of Parler it was literally funded to provide a voice to all those people banned from Twitter for saying shitty things. And Gab's founder got kicked out of Y Combinator for being a racist asshole.
So I'd say in this case, the social networks most definitely chose their users.
So I'd say in this case, the social networks most definitely chose their users.
how can they say with a. straight face they value equal opportunity and then ban someone for their personal use.....sorry. but I see stupidity leeching into society everyhere.... stupidity is a nice way of saying hate..
To play devils advocate, if you're fired because of your actions and not the colour of your skin isn't that equal opportunity? You aren't born with your political beliefs - some people really don't like Women and Gay people, that's on them, should all beliefs be protected?
Putting aside the specifics of this particular instance of culture war, global social media is a huge liability to be associated with your public persona and everyone should be aware of this, even the tech illiterate.
If you post something for the world to see, assume that the wrong person will see it at the worst possible time, even if it's years in the future. If you aren't comfortable with that, take your posts private or suspend your account, or delete your old posts, ASAP. At one point I literally walked through years of reddit history to delete any posts that might be embarrassing, even though I post pseudonymously
If you post something for the world to see, assume that the wrong person will see it at the worst possible time, even if it's years in the future. If you aren't comfortable with that, take your posts private or suspend your account, or delete your old posts, ASAP. At one point I literally walked through years of reddit history to delete any posts that might be embarrassing, even though I post pseudonymously
Was the agent fired for writing something specifically, or simply for signing up for these networks?
"The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency was distressed to discover this morning, January 25th, that one of our agents has been using the social media platforms Gab and Parler. We do not condone this activity, and we apologize to anyone who has been affected or offended by this," De Chiara wrote. "The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency has in the past and will continue to ensure a voice of unity, equality, and one that is on the side of social justice."
The unstated assertions that a person simply visiting Parler or Gab is a form of harm to others is astonishing.
Astonishing, and disturbing
From the pattern and other things I've seen from employers, it seems likely to be a response to particular content complaints where the specific content is something the employer doesn't want to draw more attention to from anyone who hasn't seen the initial complaint.
Colleen Oefelein's posts on Gab and Parler are publicly available and appear to be nothing more offensive than reposts of her tweets. I don't think that there is any more than meets the eye here. Her announcement that she was using the offending platforms was enough to raise a twitter mob against her to put pressure on her employer. More here:
https://reclaimthenet.org/literary-agent-fired-gab-parler/
https://reclaimthenet.org/literary-agent-fired-gab-parler/
That's what I'm wondering.
I signed up for a Parler account when it first opened, just for a bit of curiosity and research. Found it to be a total cesspool, never posted anything.
People should be judged for the actual opinions they express, when taken in the context of the totality of their character. But I definitely wouldn't support the shunning of somebody simply for signing up for a free service.
Heck, as a software developer and one who dabbles in activism, I've signed up for way "worse" sites than Parler. Waaaaaaay worse.
I signed up for a Parler account when it first opened, just for a bit of curiosity and research. Found it to be a total cesspool, never posted anything.
People should be judged for the actual opinions they express, when taken in the context of the totality of their character. But I definitely wouldn't support the shunning of somebody simply for signing up for a free service.
Heck, as a software developer and one who dabbles in activism, I've signed up for way "worse" sites than Parler. Waaaaaaay worse.
The language follows a pattern I've seen before where complaints were raised about specific content posted on social sites but the employer didn't want to draw additional attention to the detailed subject of the complaints from people who hasn't seen the initial complaints.
The agency statement doesn't mention specific posts, but that doesn't mean they don't exist... Feels like there's /probably/ more here than we're hearing. There's plenty of space to be loudly outraged on the barest shreds of information, though!
Meanwhile: There's presumably a lot of very free* speech in the Parler data dump, connected to people's verified accounts, which could easily be finding its way to employers, who in turn get to decide how they want to handle it.
* racist, treasonous, violent, etc.
Meanwhile: There's presumably a lot of very free* speech in the Parler data dump, connected to people's verified accounts, which could easily be finding its way to employers, who in turn get to decide how they want to handle it.
* racist, treasonous, violent, etc.
Right now, on /r/opendirectories, there is a dump of videos and pictures from parler that was hacked. Are there racist scumbags on Parler? Yes. Does that justify the disclosure of family pictures, and presumably a lot of NSFW content that is in every social network?
Speech is speech. Think about the limits you want carefully. Especially if it starts with the thought that a particular ideological or ethnic group excercising speech should result in them "getting whats coming to them"
In this case, as the statement made clear - it's not speech that is the problem, it was that she choose to speak at all, that was the problem.
Speech is speech. Think about the limits you want carefully. Especially if it starts with the thought that a particular ideological or ethnic group excercising speech should result in them "getting whats coming to them"
In this case, as the statement made clear - it's not speech that is the problem, it was that she choose to speak at all, that was the problem.
Wait, didn't Reddit have a policy against publishing "hacked information" just about two months ago?
Let’s just say that Reddit is unequal in their application of rules.
"but that doesn't mean they don't exist."
Guilty until proven innocent.
Guilty until proven innocent.
We people wringing our hands on the internet do not necessarily have all the information to judge what's going on here. We have a very thin article with a tiiiiiny shred of information about people we have otherwise never heard of.
This whole discussion is a great encapsulation of mindless, reflexive outrage on hacker news.
This whole discussion is a great encapsulation of mindless, reflexive outrage on hacker news.
According to the article it appears she signed up and actively encouraged others to join as well explicitly for the lack of censorship.
"In a November 12 tweet, Oefelein invited followers to join her on the conservative social network, which she described as "a great platform with no censorship." Oefelein suggested earlier this month that she may also use the far-right social networking site Gab."
The fired agent also said:
"Well thanks Twitter and @JDLitAgency," Oefelein wrote. "I just got fired because I'm a Christian and a conservative."
Which makes me suspect that she was writing political stuff with her real name on Parler/Gab, since Parler/Gab are not inherently Christian sites. (and theoretically aren't inherently conservative ones either?)
"In a November 12 tweet, Oefelein invited followers to join her on the conservative social network, which she described as "a great platform with no censorship." Oefelein suggested earlier this month that she may also use the far-right social networking site Gab."
The fired agent also said:
"Well thanks Twitter and @JDLitAgency," Oefelein wrote. "I just got fired because I'm a Christian and a conservative."
Which makes me suspect that she was writing political stuff with her real name on Parler/Gab, since Parler/Gab are not inherently Christian sites. (and theoretically aren't inherently conservative ones either?)
Should people lose their jobs for being Christian, conservative, and the slightest bit vocal?
Hard no. If she was literally fired for the social media equivalent of wearing a cross or having a Trump bumper sticker? If so, I think we would agree that's wrong.
However there's quite possibly a lot more to it than that.
Christianity is not inherently evil but (like all major religious texts) the Bible uh... lends itself to multiple interpretations, to put it mildly.
Surely we can agree that a lot of heinous behavior over the years has been justified by the perpetrators in the name of religion. I'm sure those folks felt they were presecuted "just for following their religion" as well.
However there's quite possibly a lot more to it than that.
Christianity is not inherently evil but (like all major religious texts) the Bible uh... lends itself to multiple interpretations, to put it mildly.
Surely we can agree that a lot of heinous behavior over the years has been justified by the perpetrators in the name of religion. I'm sure those folks felt they were presecuted "just for following their religion" as well.
Of course not, I'm just saying I wasn't aware Parler and Gab were christian, conservative websites, so it doesn't make sense for the agent to claim she was fired for being christian/conservative when the reason provided by the employer was that she was on gab/parler unless she was being political on those sites but not political on twitter or w/e.
Parler, at least, despite initially claiming to not censor anyone/anything, went out of its way to censor/block people in opposed groups.[0] Parler's CEO bragged about blocking trolls, which he identified as those attacking Christians or conservatives.[1]
Of course, the most politically-conservative Christians I know are not on Parler nor Gab, but they're also not Trump supporters, which seemed to be the real reason people went to Parler/Gab. That's an unsupported assertion on my part, but seems consistent with my observations.
She wasn't fired because she's a Christian and a conservative. She was fired because she was active on two sites tied to attempted insurrection. It's a bad look for the agency, but IMO a worse look for Oefelein.
0. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...
1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/06/27/parlers-f...
Of course, the most politically-conservative Christians I know are not on Parler nor Gab, but they're also not Trump supporters, which seemed to be the real reason people went to Parler/Gab. That's an unsupported assertion on my part, but seems consistent with my observations.
She wasn't fired because she's a Christian and a conservative. She was fired because she was active on two sites tied to attempted insurrection. It's a bad look for the agency, but IMO a worse look for Oefelein.
0. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...
1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/06/27/parlers-f...
Are people still peddling the hyperbole/lie that this was an attempted coup?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/06/why-this-wasnt-a-coup-c...
I think it's worth pointing out what a "hot take" that article is. It was written on the day of storming itself, and published at 5:54 PM, before the announced curfew had even started (and before some details about the government response were revealed[0]).
The Naval War College professor being interviewed in the article basically argues that unless the military is involved, it isn't a "coup", by definition. That would make the phrase "military coup" redundant, and contradicts the Merriam-Webster definition[1] which characterizes it as:
> a “sudden decisive exercise of force in politics,” but particularly the “violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group.”
By the professor's logic, even if a president were to explicitly command his followers to storm the Capitol, eliminate his political opponents, and destroy the certifications of the electoral votes he had lost, allowing him to stay in power illegitimately, that still wouldn't be a coup (or a self-coup, presumably).
In any case, another article[2] on the same site makes the opposing case:
> It’s undeniable at this point. The United States is witnessing a coup attempt — a forceful effort to seize power against the legal framework.
Admittedly it was published even earlier than the other article, but it had been drafted in response to discussions which had begun before the protests had turned violent, vindicating the author's position.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_St...
[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/01/13/insurrection-coup-and...
[2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/06/coup-america-capitol-el...
The Naval War College professor being interviewed in the article basically argues that unless the military is involved, it isn't a "coup", by definition. That would make the phrase "military coup" redundant, and contradicts the Merriam-Webster definition[1] which characterizes it as:
> a “sudden decisive exercise of force in politics,” but particularly the “violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group.”
By the professor's logic, even if a president were to explicitly command his followers to storm the Capitol, eliminate his political opponents, and destroy the certifications of the electoral votes he had lost, allowing him to stay in power illegitimately, that still wouldn't be a coup (or a self-coup, presumably).
In any case, another article[2] on the same site makes the opposing case:
> It’s undeniable at this point. The United States is witnessing a coup attempt — a forceful effort to seize power against the legal framework.
Admittedly it was published even earlier than the other article, but it had been drafted in response to discussions which had begun before the protests had turned violent, vindicating the author's position.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_St...
[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/01/13/insurrection-coup-and...
[2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/06/coup-america-capitol-el...
> Are people still peddling the hyperbole/lie that this was an attempted coup?
It's neither hyperbole nor a lie.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/06/coup-america-capitol-el...
It's neither hyperbole nor a lie.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/06/coup-america-capitol-el...
I used the word "insurrection," not "coup," but yes, it definitely was an attempt at both. Bad articles notwithstanding, upcoming federal trials ought to make that clear to those who participated.
Yeah, very annoying though almost not surprising
The political correctness now required by both the US Left and Right is distressing.
A big complaint of young people was that there wasn't any real difference between the two major US parties. Well, that's over.
A big complaint of young people was that there wasn't any real difference between the two major US parties. Well, that's over.
To be honest, there still isn't one.
I am not from US, but from what I saw generally both parties act the same, the exceptions are basically a few personalities that warp the VOTERs around them, but not the people in power.
Trump for the GOP (that seemly only joined the GOP because he could win their primaries... if you take a look on his pre-GOP relationships he had strong ties to democratic party) and Sanders for Democrats (and he is not even officially in the party if I remember correctly, he in the Senate was listed as "independent that sits with Democrats")
Even AOC that famously claim to be socialist got nicknamed in some circles as "Fraud Squad" because despite claiming to be socialist she is voting along status-quo US politics (that is: generally pro-corporations).
Voters believe the parties are different now, but the people elected aren't that different, it is why in USA accusing someone of doing "partisan blocking" makes sense, it is because often when a party is blocking the other, they are doing so for shenanigans, not because they truly believe the proposal is bad, often both parties believe in the proposal but want to play political games.
I am not from US, but from what I saw generally both parties act the same, the exceptions are basically a few personalities that warp the VOTERs around them, but not the people in power.
Trump for the GOP (that seemly only joined the GOP because he could win their primaries... if you take a look on his pre-GOP relationships he had strong ties to democratic party) and Sanders for Democrats (and he is not even officially in the party if I remember correctly, he in the Senate was listed as "independent that sits with Democrats")
Even AOC that famously claim to be socialist got nicknamed in some circles as "Fraud Squad" because despite claiming to be socialist she is voting along status-quo US politics (that is: generally pro-corporations).
Voters believe the parties are different now, but the people elected aren't that different, it is why in USA accusing someone of doing "partisan blocking" makes sense, it is because often when a party is blocking the other, they are doing so for shenanigans, not because they truly believe the proposal is bad, often both parties believe in the proposal but want to play political games.
Reminds me of this classic post: https://twitter.com/LizardRumsfeld/status/107154053707586355...
Being against cancel culture but from the right is "The problems (getting cancelled out of a job) are bad... but the causes (at-will employment), the causes are good."
Being against cancel culture but from the right is "The problems (getting cancelled out of a job) are bad... but the causes (at-will employment), the causes are good."
The relevant thing is unsaid. What was going on on Parler and Gab that warranted such action? I've seen pretty horrifying things on Gab that makes that "Camp Auschwitz Staff" hoodie seem office-appropriate.
Seems to me that the core issue here is at-will employment. Currently, it is triggered by political purity spiral, but in other times there may be other impulses to cancel people.
Here in Czechia, emplyees generally cannot be fired for issues unrelated to work, and even most work excesses must be first handled by written admonishment before firing.
Here in Czechia, emplyees generally cannot be fired for issues unrelated to work, and even most work excesses must be first handled by written admonishment before firing.
[deleted]
This is insane. I don't use either Parler or Gab, but may sign up just to show support for free speech.
Enough of the authoritarianism.
Enough of the authoritarianism.
I'm not surprised. I mean companies will do this depending on what you say online. That's why you USE A FUCKING ALIAS.
I wish the left would just publish a list of the things you're allowed to say so that we could avoid all this trouble.
I just find it comical that liberals went from being happy peace loving hippies, to being uptight ultra-orthodox in their thinking and have this deep urge everyone must just comply. I jokingly like to call it the ultra-orthodox church of the right.
Everyone should be "good" with my exact definition of good, in thinking, feeling, actions and reactions to things.
Everyone should be "good" with my exact definition of good, in thinking, feeling, actions and reactions to things.
It’s entertaining to read people like you and your exaggerated posts about the world coming to an end after a reporter was fired after their reputation was put into question.
Conservatives getting upset about the results of a Free Market.
Liberals promoting monopolistic capitalism and bigotry. Cognitive dissonance much?
Btw Conservatives promote less government not zero government interference. I think you’re confusing it with hardcore libertarianism.
Btw Conservatives promote less government not zero government interference. I think you’re confusing it with hardcore libertarianism.
The Left is using psychological projection as a technique. They accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they themselves are doing. They'll call you a fascist while they burn books. They'll call you racist while accusing you of "white privilege". Like you say, they'll destroy people's lives, based on racial hatred, while accusing those people of racial hatred.
Domestic terrorism.
Domestic terrorism.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25922953.
Please don't use HN for ideological battle or post generic ideological comments or flamewar comments to HN. All that leads to internet hell, which we're trying to avoid here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We ban accounts that do those things:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
especially if they're using HN primarily for those things:
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Looking at your recent commenting history, it looks like you either are, or are perilously close to the line. Please stop.
Please don't use HN for ideological battle or post generic ideological comments or flamewar comments to HN. All that leads to internet hell, which we're trying to avoid here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We ban accounts that do those things:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
especially if they're using HN primarily for those things:
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Looking at your recent commenting history, it looks like you either are, or are perilously close to the line. Please stop.
There is a clear difference between racism and acknowledging white privilege. White privilege simple describes one way in which racism manifests itself. If you can't tell the difference between a KKK member and someone says that people with white names getting called back for job interviews more than people with black names is white privilege then you are willfully ignorant. It is not racist to say that someone benefits from white privilege.
Also the person you are replying to didn't say they destroy peoples lives based on racial hatred. They haven't destroyed anyone's lives because they're white.
Also the person you are replying to didn't say they destroy peoples lives based on racial hatred. They haven't destroyed anyone's lives because they're white.
I'm fairly educated on these things, and I'm a racial minority married to a white woman with mixed kids, and I'm still not sure I understand what people mean when they refer to "white privilege."
I get that there is a distinct cultural bias against Black people (what people call "anti-Blackness"). Living in the south this was quite apparent to me. This is structural in nature, and quite distinct from normal majority/minority dynamics.
But I don't perceive any similar "white privilege." To go to your resume example, I've got a last name that's definitely Muslim, but I've never perceived any sort of difference in response on that basis. (And in myriad areas, from income policing to health, statistically I'm likely to enjoy advantages compared to white people.) I think the concept of "white privilege" is actually a conceptual error that comes from generalizing Black-white racial dynamics to a multi-ethnic society.
Also, to address your point about the KKK member, the left uses "racism" to mean a lot more than just that. Based on that expansive definition of "racism" I'd qualify use of phrases like "unbearable whiteness" as "racism": https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/01/the-unbearable-white...
I get that there is a distinct cultural bias against Black people (what people call "anti-Blackness"). Living in the south this was quite apparent to me. This is structural in nature, and quite distinct from normal majority/minority dynamics.
But I don't perceive any similar "white privilege." To go to your resume example, I've got a last name that's definitely Muslim, but I've never perceived any sort of difference in response on that basis. (And in myriad areas, from income policing to health, statistically I'm likely to enjoy advantages compared to white people.) I think the concept of "white privilege" is actually a conceptual error that comes from generalizing Black-white racial dynamics to a multi-ethnic society.
Also, to address your point about the KKK member, the left uses "racism" to mean a lot more than just that. Based on that expansive definition of "racism" I'd qualify use of phrases like "unbearable whiteness" as "racism": https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/01/the-unbearable-white...
I can describe it. I'm Brazilian, very white, green eyes, brown hair that was lighter when I was younger.
About 30 years ago (wow!), in my late teens I organized a party on a house my aunt recently bought to become her medical practice. We had lots of drinks, some drugs, a DJ, live music and some guests walking over the roof of neighboring houses. Police got called.
When they saw me, young and privileged, they wanted to arrest me. I offered them a beer, they entered the house, one of them played the drum set with his service gun. They drank some fancy cocktails.
They enjoyed themselves for about 15 minutes until they were called on the radio. Then they told me, laughing, I should try to control my guests a little better. Then they went away.
If we weren't a bunch or privileged white kids in an upper middle class neighborhood, they'd most likely arrive shooting, as they do when there are parties in slums.
About 30 years ago (wow!), in my late teens I organized a party on a house my aunt recently bought to become her medical practice. We had lots of drinks, some drugs, a DJ, live music and some guests walking over the roof of neighboring houses. Police got called.
When they saw me, young and privileged, they wanted to arrest me. I offered them a beer, they entered the house, one of them played the drum set with his service gun. They drank some fancy cocktails.
They enjoyed themselves for about 15 minutes until they were called on the radio. Then they told me, laughing, I should try to control my guests a little better. Then they went away.
If we weren't a bunch or privileged white kids in an upper middle class neighborhood, they'd most likely arrive shooting, as they do when there are parties in slums.
Is that "white privilege?" From personal experience, I don't think police treat upper middle class asian kids any differently than that. (But I bet it would be different for upper middle class Black people.)
Statistically, and adjusted for age (which is really important because there is quite a big difference in median age between racial groups in the U.S.) asians are actually less likely to get shot by the police than whites. Latinos are about the same/a little bit more likely. Black people are twice as likely to get shot by the police.
Statistically, and adjusted for age (which is really important because there is quite a big difference in median age between racial groups in the U.S.) asians are actually less likely to get shot by the police than whites. Latinos are about the same/a little bit more likely. Black people are twice as likely to get shot by the police.
I think "racial privilege" and/or "class privilege" are the general terms that have more straightforward meanings, and "white privilege" is both a) a special case of race/class privilege, and b) sometimes used as a poor synonym for race/class privilege.
In Brazil, it is my impression Asians are treated as white by the police.
The rule of thumb is that they will be more violent with poorer people, which has a high correlation with having darker skin, at least in southern Brazil. Asians are more often than not, middle and upper-class.
The rule of thumb is that they will be more violent with poorer people, which has a high correlation with having darker skin, at least in southern Brazil. Asians are more often than not, middle and upper-class.
> they'd most likely arrive shooting, as they do when there are parties in slums.
Can you please link to the news articles about these slum parties that are broken up by officers who start shooting the moment they arrive? Seems like something that would definitely get reported on.
In all my time living in low-income housing, I never witnessed something like this. And I had plenty of sleepless nights when neighbors would throw ragers. Some got broken up (mostly when a fight would break out among attendees), and I'm sure some of the cops weren't pleasant. But I never witnessed cops jumping out of their cars with their guns blazing.
Although I'm one piece of anecdotal evidence, so I'd like to see the evidence you have of this event.
Can you please link to the news articles about these slum parties that are broken up by officers who start shooting the moment they arrive? Seems like something that would definitely get reported on.
In all my time living in low-income housing, I never witnessed something like this. And I had plenty of sleepless nights when neighbors would throw ragers. Some got broken up (mostly when a fight would break out among attendees), and I'm sure some of the cops weren't pleasant. But I never witnessed cops jumping out of their cars with their guns blazing.
Although I'm one piece of anecdotal evidence, so I'd like to see the evidence you have of this event.
You can read about one such case, one that created enough social repercussion that the cops involved had legal trouble, here:
https://recordtv.r7.com/fala-brasil/videos/mpsp-ira-indiciar...
Most often nothing happens.
https://recordtv.r7.com/fala-brasil/videos/mpsp-ira-indiciar...
Most often nothing happens.
I see this link happened in Brazil. Definitely a horribly incident.
My comment, and my personal experiences, relate to America. At least here, I don't know of any events where police have opened fire on a pack of teenagers partying without reason. But they could exist, which was why I was asking for evidence.
My comment, and my personal experiences, relate to America. At least here, I don't know of any events where police have opened fire on a pack of teenagers partying without reason. But they could exist, which was why I was asking for evidence.
I agree with your third paragraph about the conceptual error. I think there are subtleties to the concept and racism is manifested differently. I've heard Muslim and Arab people talk about their experiences with racism and I believe them but they don't complain of the same things that happen to black people.
And yes I chose the kkk member as an obviously racist person but my point was that pointing out white privilege is just not racist.
And yes I chose the kkk member as an obviously racist person but my point was that pointing out white privilege is just not racist.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Oddly, it always seems to be the people throwing around terms like “white privilege” who are willfully ignorant. There is no such thing as white privilege.
[deleted]
Not sure why you're getting downvoted.
Communists and Fascists share a lot of the same authoritarian tactics.
Communists and Fascists share a lot of the same authoritarian tactics.
The word we need to use is "Totalitarian Liberalism". We're not heading into communism (there's no unity, there's no focus on workers) nor fascism (there's no aesthetic, there's no glory of the nation). Instead, we get as much Product as we want, as long as we all toe the line and profess to believe as we're told - no matter how far that strays from observable reality.
It’s because they’re positing that it’s only people on the left that do this.
I’ve heard it said that the enemy of extremists isn't the extremist on the other side, it’s the moderates. Extremists are itching for a fight, and they’ll continue fighting forever. Moderates and pragmatists stand in the way of that goal. If an extremist group were to win and completely eliminate the other side, they’d draw some other battle lines within their own group. “Othering” is important to extremists, and the’ll find a way to do it.
I’m another proud lefty. I marched with Black Lives Matter last summer, voted for Elizabeth Warren in the primaries, I’m vegan for all the reasons people think are stupid. All of that is true, and it infuriates me to see leftist extremists getting dressed up in black and setting buildings on fire. It infuriates me to see leftists gatekeeping on Twitter, and taking such joy from tweeting people’s employers to try to get them fired for the crime of making a joke that didn’t pass a purity test, or for having a counterintuitive take on something complex. Internet pile ons are the worst.
All that said, it confounds me that people on the right seem to be unable to see these traits within their own party, and aren’t working harder to rid their ranks of QAnon, Proud Boys, and Trumpism. It seems like anyone on the right who has the temerity to point out these problems gets branded as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) and expelled from the party. Jeff Sessions – JEFF SESSIONS – was cancelled by the right for not being right enough.
So, yeah, there’s a lot of projection going on all around.
I’ve heard it said that the enemy of extremists isn't the extremist on the other side, it’s the moderates. Extremists are itching for a fight, and they’ll continue fighting forever. Moderates and pragmatists stand in the way of that goal. If an extremist group were to win and completely eliminate the other side, they’d draw some other battle lines within their own group. “Othering” is important to extremists, and the’ll find a way to do it.
I’m another proud lefty. I marched with Black Lives Matter last summer, voted for Elizabeth Warren in the primaries, I’m vegan for all the reasons people think are stupid. All of that is true, and it infuriates me to see leftist extremists getting dressed up in black and setting buildings on fire. It infuriates me to see leftists gatekeeping on Twitter, and taking such joy from tweeting people’s employers to try to get them fired for the crime of making a joke that didn’t pass a purity test, or for having a counterintuitive take on something complex. Internet pile ons are the worst.
All that said, it confounds me that people on the right seem to be unable to see these traits within their own party, and aren’t working harder to rid their ranks of QAnon, Proud Boys, and Trumpism. It seems like anyone on the right who has the temerity to point out these problems gets branded as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) and expelled from the party. Jeff Sessions – JEFF SESSIONS – was cancelled by the right for not being right enough.
So, yeah, there’s a lot of projection going on all around.
No they are not positing they _only_ prior on the left are doing it.
Militant left is as dangerous as militant right. The problem is not the side of the political spectrum but the approach to dealing with opponents.
Militant left is as dangerous as militant right. The problem is not the side of the political spectrum but the approach to dealing with opponents.
> Militant left is as dangerous as militant right.
Yeah... The terrible dangers of universal healthcare and proportional taxes...
Yeah... The terrible dangers of universal healthcare and proportional taxes...
Promoting universal healthcare and proportional taxes isn't dangerous at all. Neither is promoting freedom of speech and healthy laws for small businesses.
It get dangerous when either side decides that anything standing in the way (in their opinion) of these ideals are "other", and that the "others" are so evil they are simply inhuman, and must be quashed by all means necessary.
This pattern repeats in history many, many times. And lots of people are nervous that the beginning of that pattern is starting to play out in the modern West.
It get dangerous when either side decides that anything standing in the way (in their opinion) of these ideals are "other", and that the "others" are so evil they are simply inhuman, and must be quashed by all means necessary.
This pattern repeats in history many, many times. And lots of people are nervous that the beginning of that pattern is starting to play out in the modern West.
> It get dangerous
True. Remember all the lynchings of white people in the South by the BBB, for offenses sometimes as minor as drinking from the wrong water fountain?
Or when BLM marched, with torches in hand, chanting "Blood and soil" and "You will not replace us"? There was even a Neonazi woman who was ran over by a BLM activist driving a car.
And what about the day when BLM terrorists invaded the Capitol threatening to kill everyone who wouldn't break the law and vote Obama back into the presidency? That day was wild.
True. Remember all the lynchings of white people in the South by the BBB, for offenses sometimes as minor as drinking from the wrong water fountain?
Or when BLM marched, with torches in hand, chanting "Blood and soil" and "You will not replace us"? There was even a Neonazi woman who was ran over by a BLM activist driving a car.
And what about the day when BLM terrorists invaded the Capitol threatening to kill everyone who wouldn't break the law and vote Obama back into the presidency? That day was wild.
Both far left and far right regimes have resulted in chaos, murder, and repression.
If you're skeptical that leftism can cause violence, the wikipedia list of recent far-left terrorism groups may convince you otherwise: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism
And of course, there's the more classical examples: Maoist struggle sessions, the Red Terror, the Cambodian Killing Fields.
Extremism is dangerous. And it's concerning to me that this has become a debatable point.
If you're skeptical that leftism can cause violence, the wikipedia list of recent far-left terrorism groups may convince you otherwise: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism
And of course, there's the more classical examples: Maoist struggle sessions, the Red Terror, the Cambodian Killing Fields.
Extremism is dangerous. And it's concerning to me that this has become a debatable point.
It's noteworthy that these groups were mostly active in the 20th century as opposition to governments while right-wing extremists have been the government of many countries, including the US until recently.
Yes, I agree that it's very noteworthy. These groups generally appear in response to right governments. Which means I suspect we'll see more of them in coming years.
I am all for fighting far-right extremists. I am very against innocent civilians being killed, oppressed, or censored in the process.
I am all for fighting far-right extremists. I am very against innocent civilians being killed, oppressed, or censored in the process.
Those are good points.
I think however, cancel culture in particular, is a phenom of the Left right now.
Weaponizing conspiracy (QAnon, Elections, COVID) is a culture of the Right, no doubt.
Both sides are fully aware of what they are doing and leveraging it on purpose (not all, but many).
The thing is - if we have good institutions then we can hold out against QAnon. But cancel culture I think is actually a corrosion of our institutions.
QAnon and COVID conspiracies are not a problem at Harvard, whereas Cancel Culture is, in fact, it's being driven little bit from places like that.
I think however, cancel culture in particular, is a phenom of the Left right now.
Weaponizing conspiracy (QAnon, Elections, COVID) is a culture of the Right, no doubt.
Both sides are fully aware of what they are doing and leveraging it on purpose (not all, but many).
The thing is - if we have good institutions then we can hold out against QAnon. But cancel culture I think is actually a corrosion of our institutions.
QAnon and COVID conspiracies are not a problem at Harvard, whereas Cancel Culture is, in fact, it's being driven little bit from places like that.
Cancel Culture is all over the right. They just don't call it that.
Mention the name AOC favorably, and you will be shut down. Parler censored people for supporting BLM. Many took pride in tanking Captain Marvel because of its lead's support for feminist causes. Any progressive action you take will cause you to be dubbed "virtue signalling".
It's all just cancel culture. They simply won't call it that.
There's a saying that for the right wing, every accusation is a confession. They're calling it out on the left (much of it nut-picking[1]) because it's a pervasive part of their own culture.
[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking
Mention the name AOC favorably, and you will be shut down. Parler censored people for supporting BLM. Many took pride in tanking Captain Marvel because of its lead's support for feminist causes. Any progressive action you take will cause you to be dubbed "virtue signalling".
It's all just cancel culture. They simply won't call it that.
There's a saying that for the right wing, every accusation is a confession. They're calling it out on the left (much of it nut-picking[1]) because it's a pervasive part of their own culture.
[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking
"Mention the name AOC favorably, and you will be shut down."
No, this is not remotely true. They'll downvote you into obvlivion on 'Fox News' comments - but this is not cancel culture.
Nobody is 'losing their job' and being 'publicly shamed' because they said the 'like AOC'.
Sure - you might get a few Trumpers in your face for supporting one of the more perceptibly radical faces of the Demcorcatic party - but that's just 'angry culture' - not cancel culture.
" Parler censored people for supporting BLM."
I strongly doubt this is true - even if it is - again, this is not 'cancel culture' - this is just bad groupthink on a site.
If executives and staff were being fired and losing their jobs for showing up at a BLM rally, or donating money to BLM - that would be 'cancel culture' - but I don't believe that is happening.
No, this is not remotely true. They'll downvote you into obvlivion on 'Fox News' comments - but this is not cancel culture.
Nobody is 'losing their job' and being 'publicly shamed' because they said the 'like AOC'.
Sure - you might get a few Trumpers in your face for supporting one of the more perceptibly radical faces of the Demcorcatic party - but that's just 'angry culture' - not cancel culture.
" Parler censored people for supporting BLM."
I strongly doubt this is true - even if it is - again, this is not 'cancel culture' - this is just bad groupthink on a site.
If executives and staff were being fired and losing their jobs for showing up at a BLM rally, or donating money to BLM - that would be 'cancel culture' - but I don't believe that is happening.
kderbyma(1)
deanCommie(1)
ubermonkey(5)
It seems guilt by association is transitive, leading to a 2-means clustering of society.
We now live in the future, where everybody is either a Communist or a Fascist.
We now live in the future, where everybody is either a Communist or a Fascist.
Being canceled for what you write, think, your opinions... That is a major part of life in any communist regime. Difference being that in communism it's the state that does the monitoring and canceling, while here - the people themselves.
True for right-wing regimes as well.
So it is not like communism at all you mean?
I would say this is true for any dictatorship or even some authoritarian regimes. How is it related specifically to communism?
Full disclosure: I am a communist.
Things will only get real once HN gets people fired.
You cannot delete past HN comments.
You cannot delete past HN comments.
Most groups operate with some kernel of legitimacy, with which the more radical elements tend to use to interpret everything.
When one group does something unassailable bad - like raid capitol hill - it embolden radicals from other groups, just raising the bar below which acceptable actions happen.
We're going to see a lot more arbitrary banning among people who might have done 'very bad things' and maybe deserved some kind of censure.
When one group does something unassailable bad - like raid capitol hill - it embolden radicals from other groups, just raising the bar below which acceptable actions happen.
We're going to see a lot more arbitrary banning among people who might have done 'very bad things' and maybe deserved some kind of censure.
I suppose the agency has the right to fire/hire whoever it wants. The person who was fired is free to start her own agency. What's the problem here?
This is the plausible deniability the far right has baked into their platform that's gotten us where we are. Parler isn't for racists and far right nationalists - it's for free speech. Someone calls you out for hate speech? It was a joke. Ligthen up. I was edgelording. Can't say anything around these snowflakes. We don't hate minorities, we support the police, they're heroes - you're not talking bad about heroes are you?
That said, I don't agree with this firing. "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - Mencken
That said, I don't agree with this firing. "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - Mencken
This happened during the BLM protests this summer in St. Loius. The looters she reported were blocks away from any BLM protest, and other looting bands were setting fires on nearby blocks.
Frederick was a vocal advocate and financial supporter of BLM and had attended protests in the past. Didn't stop the hordes from calling her racist and threatening to ruin the careers of agents who dared to work for her literary agency, and authors represented by her.
Her agency was gutted. All over calling 911 to report people crashing a van into a small business to raid it.
(Edited to add: I worked in publishing for years. I left because of the censorship in the arena. And I'm a proud lefty.
It's gotten really crazy. Authors getting death threats. Books literally ripped off the shelves and destroyed. (No, not rabid white supremacist books. Books by PoC authors.) But industry professionals insist this is NOT censorship, just business decisions. And if you disagree? You're a dirty, filthy -ist.)
Another edit to add links to the incidents I was referring to:
Black author/illustrator team had their book ripped off shelves and pulped: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jan/25/censorship-chi...
Asian author was threatened and intimidated into cancelling the publication of her novel: https://www.vulture.com/2019/01/ya-twitter-forces-rising-sta...
Black author was intimidated into cancelling publication of book: https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/in-ya-where-is-...
I can think of 10+ more books that belong on this list. This is just the tip of the iceberg.