News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by akhmatova on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @06:36PM (#30772501)
It's the kind of sentence that, to me at least, grinds my mental gears to a halt.

This is the cortisone rush that tptacek was referring to. You need to let it go through you (or past you) until you feel your mental gears loosen up again. Then step back and look at the bigger picture.

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

Note that this don't mean "unpopular or difficult" in the anything-goes sense. Spouting sheer idiocy can (and should) get you shunned and shamed, along with threats of implications of violence, and a whole lot of other things I don't need to mention.

But taking unpopular / difficult (or even simply naïve) stances within the boundaries of plausibility and reason, by themselves, should not merit such a reaction. And yet increasingly they do. That is what is meant by a breakdown in the standards of civil discourse. And it this breakdown of standards -- and the creeping climate of "better hold your tongue" that has taken over this country -- that is the main concern of the editorial piece. Not absolutist notions of freedom or freedom-from.

Nuance. That's the key takeaway here.

Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by ProfessorLayton on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @07:11PM (#30772806)
>But that, once upon a time, and it wasn't too long ago, there was a thing known as "civil discourse" in this country. In which (and granted the boundaries are fuzzy hear) -- in itself the mere fact of having an unpopular (or difficult) opinion on the state of the world ... did not run such an alarmingly and dysfunctional risk of getting you shut down in form or another as it does today.

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

Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by analog31 on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @07:32PM (#30772986)
The surface area isn't always all that big. The student's essay, cited in the article, had to do with comments she made within the walls of a college classroom. And I think that essay (if I didn't mix it up with another one) talked about students getting lambasted on social media for their comments in class.

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

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

Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by jandrese on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @07:30PM (#30772970)
This is a consequence of the Internet. In the old days if you said something stupid people would laugh at you and that would be the end of it. Now if you say something stupid and it ends up online people will dig it out of your past to use against you. This is an especially big problem for people who were edgy in their youth but are older now. Societal standards shifted out from under them and you aren't grandfathered in the court of public opinion.
Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by jandrese on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @07:27PM (#30772947)
> Spouting sheer idiocy can (and should) get you shunned and shamed

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

Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by ashtonkem on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @08:00PM (#30773197)
> The window of what is considered beyond the pale has grown quite a big larger than it was in the past.

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

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

Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by refurb on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @08:19PM (#30773325)
In the old days you would never hear the President of the US repeating obviously fabricated insane conspiracy theories.

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

Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by akhmatova on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @08:42PM (#30773483)
Scale matters. And in terms of sheer magnitude of insanity and frequency of its emission -- no one who has held that office can hold a candle to number 45.
Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by refurb on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @11:19PM (#30774496)
I would seriously disagree with that statement.
Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by MagnumOpus on Wednesday March 23, 2022 @06:14AM (#30776884)
Your disagreement is noted, but arguments supported by examples would better support your view.
Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by coffeecat on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @10:09PM (#30774058)
> The window of what is considered beyond the pale has grown quite a big larger than it was in the past.

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

Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by ashtonkem on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @08:03PM (#30773220)
> But that, once upon a time, and it wasn't too long ago, there was a thing known as "civil discourse" in this country. In which (and granted the boundaries are fuzzy hear) -- in itself the mere fact of having an unpopular (or difficult) opinion on the state of the world ... did not run such an alarmingly and dysfunctional risk of getting you shut down in form or another as it does today.

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

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

Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by jeherr on Wednesday March 23, 2022 @10:42AM (#30778926)
This doesn't prove that we haven't taken steps backwards in terms of what is allowed as civil discourse in recent years. You're correct that many things were once completely unallowed by virtue of repercussions, which we now see as within the overton window. We've worked towards getting better though and we shouldn't throw that away. What people today are reacting to is that it feels like we are less free to speak our minds, at least on some topics, than we were just a few decades ago. Just because it used to be worse long before that doesn't mean it isn't a problem worth dealing with now. Racism also used to be much worse than it is today, but that's not an excuse for the amount of racism that still exists either.
Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by ashtonkem on Wednesday March 23, 2022 @11:39AM (#30779608)
> What people today are reacting to is that it feels like we are less free to speak our minds, at least on some topics, than we were just a few decades ago.

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

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

[dead]
Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by librish on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @09:11PM (#30773698)
It was a fine argument that you completely avoided responding to.
Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by akhmatova on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @09:26PM (#30773799)
We see things differently, I guess. I found it jejeune (and the tone behind it rather obnoxious).
Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by ashtonkem on Wednesday March 23, 2022 @10:02AM (#30778549)
Seems like a convenient way to not engage with the argument I made.
Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by akhmatova on Wednesday March 23, 2022 @10:30AM (#30778801)
The fact that you need to dial as far back as 1930s to find a climate worse than what we have now (just so you can say "I betcha you didn't know about that stuff!") would seem to indicate... that there's not a lot substance to this argument.

Are we in a worse place than the darkest decades of the 20th century? Or even half as bad of place? Of course not. That doesn't that the current climate hasn't deteriorated substantially over the last 15 years or so. Or that some aspects of it aren't reminiscent of the darker times that you are referencing.

Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by ashtonkem on Wednesday March 23, 2022 @11:33AM (#30779522)
> The fact that you need to dial as far back as 1930s to find a climate worse than what we have now (just so you can say "I betcha you didn't know about that stuff!") would seem to indicate... that there's not a lot substance to this argument.

I listed examples from the 1990s though, not just the 1930s. The moral panics of the 1980s and 1990s provides a ripe set of examples, if you’re interested in more.

There is also the radical change that social media and the internet has brought since the 1990s. And one of the great advents that things like Twitter has brought is the ability to get an audience and to speak anonymously if one so wishes. This has been an incredible boon to free speech, and it’s kind of frustrating that people aren’t treating it like the miracle that it is.

> Are we in a worse place than the darkest decades of the 20th century? Or even half as bad of place? Of course not. That doesn't that the current climate hasn't deteriorated substantially over the last 15 years or so. Or that some aspects of it aren't reminiscent of the darker times that you are referencing.

How, precisely are we worse off than the 1990s? Be specific, please. All these arguments break down to hand waving over how free speech has broken down, and yet nobody ever provides any evidence, only vague assertions and feelings.

Mean while I personally see the alt right out chanting things that were unthinkable in the 1990s. It is very hard for me to square the idea that free speech is worse off with the alt right openly saying racist and bigoted things.

Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by akhmatova on Wednesday March 23, 2022 @07:34PM (#30784928)
The best answer I can give you is: "Go read a book or two about it."

Unfortunately you weren't very civil in your initial response, a few levels above. And it takes time to provide even a cursory list of examples you are asking for. Meanwhile there is an active genocide operation happening in a part of the world I have some close connections to. And a day job that I theoretically need to tend to, as well.

So I just don't have time to help you out here.

Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by l33t2328 on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @07:03PM (#30772731)
> cortisone rush

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

Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by lapsis_beeftech on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @07:50PM (#30773121)
Whatever it is you are experiencing it is definitely not cortisone, which is an inactive metabolite of cortisol.
Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by mensetmanusman on Wednesday March 23, 2022 @07:53AM (#30777500)
One trick is to internally sing the comments that you suspect might give you that reaction.
Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by dekhn on Tuesday March 22, 2022 @07:14PM (#30772825)