The fundamental problem is that people have become conditioned to think of themselves as a member of a group first and an individual second. In many cases, the individual identity is completely obscured by the group identity. It doesn't matter if one is black, white, gay, straight, etc. It matters who they are as an individual, how they live their lives, care for their families, and so on. If one doesn't like a joke, a tv show, a book, a statue, or so on, ignore it and find something you do like. A Robert E Lee statue, for example, is not racist. It does not glorify slavery. It's history. The media and politicians stir up controversy and conflict for their own purposes, both in the States and elsewhere. Informed, confident individuals do not allow themselves to be played. The younger one is, the more accustomed they are to accepting group think whether it's about racial identity, sexual identity, and so forth. Older guys, such as myself, who grew up in a very blue collar world, and went on to college, and worked with people from all over the world, know that so much of what the media reports is simply false. Talk to and get to know people from other parts of the world and all of this "cancel culture" and group identity BS looks stupid and petty.

I’ll bring a third perspective to this: as an immigrant from a more collectivist society, I am conditioned to see myself as a member of a group. I recognize the benefits of it, but I just don’t like individuality all that much. I’m inclined to be very deferential to what my sources of authority (parents, aunts, uncles, etc.) say to conform to group norms.

What’s driving me nuts is that “identity politics” is about fake identities. Most of these “identity groups” are fronts for the white progressives who donate to liberal causes. E.g. MacKenzie Scott donated tons of money to “AAPI causes.” https://asamnews.com/2021/06/17/mackenzie-scott-donates-2-7-.... What the heck does she know about Asians or what causes they care about? I asked my dad if he could recognize any of the organizations on the list. Of course he couldn’t. What does that tell you about the incentive structure of these identity activist groups? As a result, the “Asian identity” and the “Muslim identity” that I see in the media seems to be essentially progressivism with window dressing, and has nothing to do with what my parents or aunts and uncles think about our culture. In fact, it’s often overly hostile to our values.

“Identity politics” doesn’t actually reflect what people in these groups want, except incidentally. E.g. “Asian activists” flipped out at Andrew Yang for a taking a more pro-policing stance, but most Asian voters supported him in the primary: https://www.slowboring.com/p/yang-gang. White progressives talk incessantly about “Black and brown people” but they hated Eric Adams, who overwhelmingly won the “Black and brown” vote. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/18/opinion/nyc-mayor-adams.h.... It’s not groups pursing their own political interests, but the political capital of minority groups being put in service of causes championed mainly by white people.

This is a straw man. I've never been talking about the people who aren't bothered by the jokes in question here because they're not personally carrying the baggage I'm referring to. I've talking about the people who are. Those people exist and are numerous, and they seek out and appreciate the allies they have on their side.

> I've never been talking about the people who aren't bothered by the jokes in question here because they're not personally carrying the baggage I'm referring to. I've talking about the people who are. Those people exist and are numerous

It’s impossible to talk about these groups separately because our norms and policies around race have costs and benefits which must be balanced across all the minorities who will be on the receiving end. Maybe some people will be heartened by their white professors standing up and declaring themselves “gatekeepers of white supremacy” (https://freebeacon.com/campus/northwestern-law-administrator...) but a lot of other “people of color” are going to find such treatment othering and uncomfortable.

There’s also the very real risk that all this race consciousness holds back the progress of minorities. I know progressives imagine a utopian future where they’ve vanquished racism but people of color have to live in the real world. And looking back at my own life (growing up as a brown guy in Virginia), I don’t think it would have been better if everyone had been super conscious about my skin color versus their’s.

Given the potential costs to all members of minority groups, we can’t just adopt the most extreme standards in deference to unspecified “numerous” people carrying unspecified “baggage.” If we’re going to change the norms around how white people relate to minorities, we will have to take account of how everybody affected feels about that. Mostly white progressives knocking over tables and demanding extreme policies actually gets in the way of minorities getting to control how society treats them.

> they seek out and appreciate the allies they have on their side.

White “allyship” is problematic and paternalistic: https://musaalgharbi.com/2020/05/15/definition-racist-action... (“Rather than actually dismantling white supremacy or meaningfully empowering people of color, efforts often seem to be oriented towards consolidating social and cultural capital in the hands of the ‘good’ whites.”)

It’s an agency problem: white “allies” don’t suffer the harms they’re trying to address, and for the most part don’t bear the cost of unintended consequences. For example, as the dad of brown kids, I find that a lot of “anti-racist education” risks putting brown kids in a mindset that their success or failure depends on factors outside their control. By contrast, even if such education makes white kids feel guilty, it simultaneously tells them that they’re the ones with agency and power. The mostly white people advocating these educational policies for the most part don’t have to deal with the consequences to kids that might result.

Likewise, white progressives can freely engage in rhetoric and hostility to other whites and don’t have to suffer the consequences of any backlash. Frankly I’m perplexed why—if progressives think white people are as racist as they say—that they think it’s a good idea to constantly call half the country “white supremacists,” send them to the back of the vaccine line, etc.

I urge you to get out from behind your desk and actually talk to people who are adversely impacted by people's poor behavior on a day-to-day basis. (This will help you determine who these "unspecified" people are for yourself.) Even though you are "brown” it doesn't grant you license to make excuses for jerks.

Others can argue "we don't need your help," and that's fine, but at this point in time, given where we are today as a society, and the damage I see done to people on a frequent basis, I'd rather err on the side of helping in a constructive way, how the impacted people ask us to, and advocating for people to be respectful. Call people like me "paternalistic" and "othering" if you must; it's just a rhetorical smear as far as I'm concerned. Highfalutin' characterizations add as little to this conversation as simpler-sounding ones.

> we can’t just adopt the most extreme standards in deference to unspecified “numerous” people carrying unspecified “baggage.”

There's nothing extreme whatsoever about adopting a professional demeanor. You are arguing against a position I do not hold. Again, I beg you, check your straw men at the door, and stick to the subject.

>> Are you a "member of an unprivileged group?" If not, what exactly do you think life is like for us that we can't take a joke? ... In 30+ years of being a "brown guy" in the U.S., the only thing that's ever really gotten under my skin is the self-righteous paternalism of white liberals when it comes to the social norms related to race and identity.

As another "brown guy" who has been in the US for decades, I can only say: you must have really thick skin. Either that, or you haven't actually had to deal with any vicious "jokes" from the more privileged groups.

>> It really gives me an understanding of what working class people (another target of liberal paternalism) must have felt like all these decades...

Well, coming from someone who used to be an engineer and is now a lawyer, this is simply a stunning statement, to say the least. So you think you understand how working class people must feel like because of "self-righteous paternalism of white liberals"? That's just so incredibly tone-deaf and presumptions. Jesus Christ.

What are some examples of jokes/bullying that you've encountered?

I'm sure you meant this out of genuine curiosity, but it comes across as a bit "prove it." The fact is that people have a broad range of experiences. Speaking of "brown people," 10% of e.g. Indian Americans say that racism is a "major problem" in America: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/16/miss-americ....

But 48% think it's a "minor problem" and 38% who think it's "not a problem at all." At the end of the day our social norms around race have to be broadly workable. Gearing our social norms around the 10% are not cost-free. The folks directly affected those norms may well be more worried about stifling friendships and interactions than about racism. It's like having your immune system--too sensitive isn't good either.

What's your point, Rayiner? What are we meant to do with the observation that Indian Americans generally feel like racism is not a major problem?

I’m using the poll of Indian Americans to specifically to contextualize my experience with that of enraged_camel. See my post further up about 87% of Hispanics and 82% of Asians saying that “political correctness is a problem in the country.” That’s not consistent with large numbers of people in those groups feeling so burdened by the things other people say that it impairs their daily life.

As to action items, have some perspective! Don’t feed the fear/outrage machine by writing overwrought stuff like this:

> Everyone wants to do that, until they find themselves the target of a joke while struggling to have a good career, live in a nice place, and raise a family as a member of an unprivileged group with a lot of adverse baggage to overcome.

This sort of attitude is othering and doesn’t reflect how most minorities actually experience and are affected by insensitive comments. As a corollary, be skeptical of activists—don’t let a minority of loud voices dictate how your approach to whole groups. And don’t overlook that social stability and harmony with others are also things that minorities want. Resist the urge to provoke an all-out race war through your rhetoric, writings, political support, etc.

My comments are not advocating a race war. I’m saying, maybe don’t be a dick; and don’t be surprised if people react negatively if you act like one.

> "My comments are not advocating a race war. I’m saying, maybe don’t be a dick; and don’t be surprised if people react negatively if you act like one."

Ironically, the progressives are getting increasing pushback precisely because they're failing to heed your advice, in the eyes of the general public. The NY Times has had an increasingly alarmed stream of editorials (e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/opinion/politics/latinos-...) saying that minorities are drifting away from the Democrats to the GOP largely because the latter has been able to portray progressive overreach as a problem.

I don't understand why you're so fixated on the partisan angle here. Both right-wing and left-wing Twitter engages, viciously, in "cancellation" behavior. How is it helping us understand the phenomenon to digress into whether liberals are paternalistic towards working class people? The thread you're writing on is rooted in a comment saying that Ken White doesn't purport to have figured out the whole "cancel culture" problem, but rather simply rebuts an NYT editorial that you yourself think is sloppy and poorly written. Nevertheless, here you are, proposing what seems to be a unified field theory of toxic political behavior: it's "paternalism", apparently.

This is weak. You have stuff to say. Say it, don't just barb people.

“Right-wing cancel culture” is a well understood, world-wide phenomenon. To use the example in your other post, people try to blockade abortion clinics because certain religious people understand those clinics to be engaged in mass murder. Or to use another example people freak out over cartoons of Mohammad because it’s a grave offense in Islam. That is what it is.

I talk about left-wing cancel culture because it’s a marked departure from certainly what’s been my experience. Unless we go down the path of calling progressivism a new religion, I think we have to posit that the cause of left-wing hostility to ideological pluralism has a different cause.

The overwrought nature of @otterley’s post suggested one possible explanation. If people genuinely believe that members of “unprivileged groups” suffer so much from an errant joke or political statement (even one made outside their presence) that it affects their ability to “have a good career, live in a nice place, and raise their family” then that might explain their hostility to any expression that may even remotely affect such “unprivileged groups.” If issues of race, gender, immigration status, etc., are literally life and death, then that justifies zealotry.

That mindset and reaction, in turn, seems to me to be a direct outgrowth of liberal paternalism. You have people preoccupied with harms to other people—harms that they are unable to experience directly and thus cannot put into perspective. Nonetheless, they’re convinced that they understand how society should be reshaped to help the people they’re concerned about. It’s a political agency problem.

Sure. But all we're establishing here is that everybody is hostile to ideological pluralism. That shouldn't surprise us. We live in a hyperpolarized society (and that's not the fault of "cancel culture", but rather preceded it by over 50 years, surviving multiple zeitgeist shifts in the interim, from the defeated cynicism of the post-Nixon 70s through the Reagan years and the post-9/11 culture of nationalism that got the Dixie Chicks and Bill Maher cancelled.) In a hyperpolarized society, countervailing ideologies are perceived as threatening. That's just human nature, isn't it?

So where does that leave us? Is your point that it's disappointing to you that the left is now as responsible for ideological hostility as the right? Because the left has always been just as hostile as the right.

(I was frustrated with your previous comment, but am not with this one; I'm just responding to it because you took the time to write it.)

One of the frustrating things about this discussion is the lack of a coherent definition of what "canceling" actually means. Bill Maher's cancellation quickly resulted in his own HBO show that he's hosted for almost 20 years. Or, to pick a more contemporary example, Dave Chapelle talks about being canceled from sold-out arena stages. It seems like everyone wants the "cool" factor of being a controversial figure without generating any actual controversy.

> Sure. But all we're establishing here is that everybody is hostile to ideological pluralism.

But I don’t see why liberals (broadly defined) need to be so ideological or hostile. I can understand why evangelical Christians are the way they are. But liberals, especially highly educated ones, should be able to look at the facts and see what is and what isn’t.

> So where does that leave us? Is your point that it's disappointing to you that the left is now as responsible for ideological hostility as the right? Because the left has always been just as hostile as the right.

I’m disappointed that liberal elites (and I don’t mean that pejoratively—I include myself in that class) aren’t being the grownups and taking care of stability and our institutions. I’m not surprised that zealous young college students are embracing radical ideas. I’m surprised that university administrators and deans are egging them on.

I don’t think it was always like this. There was an interregnum between when conservatives controlled the institutions and the present when things were more… liberal. Even among the liberal elite there were libertarian and populist impulses, which seem to have been driven away, leaving a strident Puritanism.

Not to be glib about this, but I mostly blame Twitter. It's a clique-forming engine.

I'd be very interested in your take on the powell memo.

It makes exactly the same points (young liberals from Yale undermining American society etc.) but its written 50 years ago, when American business was pumping lead into the air and painting houses with it, while other nations had already phased it out. And complains that no one listens to businessmen, and politics only cares about the environment and consumer safety.

This was written by a supreme court judge (who incidentally voted for Roe Vs Wade because his secretary nearly died from a backstreet abortion) so no dummy, yet his points seem ridiculous to us now. What leads you to think you're not making the same mistakes? Especially as you seem to acknowledge that in the past things were too much on the conservative side and it's kids today that are taking it too far.

I think you're overcomplicating the issue. When you come from an underprivileged group with a lot of baggage to overcome to be as successful as others, having to tolerate mean-spirited jokes at work on top of all of that baggage is just another thing you have to deal with. It's depressing, dispiriting, and disheartening, and can interfere with one's ability to be productive.

There are no kids of successful black parents? Do LeBron James’ kids have to struggle more than a white kid in Easter Kentucky?

Are Asian Americans, who are better off financially than whites in America underprivileged?

I’m not referring to those people, and I think you know that. Nor am I saying that everyone who looks like a member of an underprivileged group is actually personally underprivileged. And I think you also know that. I’m not sure why you made the above comment.

I believe he explicitly mentioned the accused behavior. It is not a unified theory, it is a specific accusation that some people propose to speak over minorities and use their voice to mount attacks on speech and champion policies for more content control against nebulous terms like hate.

Cancellation is primarily a radical leftist domain. For example, pro-abortion speakers don't normally need police escorts to speak at a university. It's not true that both wings engage in the behavior equally. There are many problems with radical right, but canceling people isn't one of them.

No, it's obviously not. The abortion example is especially funny, seeing as how people at abortion clinics frequently need armed guards to go to work.

> Cancellation is primarily a radical leftist domain.

No it isn’t. Not even close. There are countless examples of the right engaging in the same behaviors, including the recent massive wave of passing laws attempting to silence people.

If someone on the right speaks their views, Twitter mania will look to dox/cancel them. Folks on right still believe in speech their don’t agree with

>Cancellation is primarily a radical leftist domain.

Wait, what?

* Kaepernick/the NFL

* “Freedom Fries”

* Dungeons & Dragons

* Heavy metal and rap.

* Starbucks (happy holidays)

I mean you can easily pick out all sorts of attempts at “cancelling” by conservatives from the last 30 years without even having to think too hard about it. It’s an American tradition to virtue signal and cancel, it’s not relegated to the left.

Actually, can you list some successful conservative cancellings from last decade?

In my experience, the successful ones are many decades old, and the more recent ones are unsuccessful. I mean, I don’t think heavy metal or dungeons and dragons have been meaningfully cancelled in any sense, and last time conservatives seriously tried to do so was two decades ago.

I agree that conservatives also attempt to cancel, it just doesn’t work when they do.

> Actually, can you list some successful conservative cancellings from last decade?

What would be the point? You're just going to move the goalposts again once we do.

In any case, yes, the post you replied to already mentioned one recent example. The Kaepernick kneeling "scandal" happened just 4 years ago. And it's an especially egregious example because President Trump even threatened to use the power of his office and take away NFL's non-profit status if he didn't get Kaepernick fired.

Also, cancelling happens every day in America. Is your son gay? Cancel him. Is one of your classmates gay? Bully him. Is your white daughter dating a black kid? Cancel her. Did a family member stop being a Mormon/Jehovah's witness/Muslim/Scientologist/Baptist/fundamentalist Christian, cancel them. Teaching black history? Cancel the teacher. Cancel the principal. Was your kid killed in Sandy Hook? Shut the f-up, or your life will be cancelled. Did you do your job correctly as a GOP election official and call the race for the Democrats? You better watch your back.

And yes, if your teenager becomes homeless, or ends up killing him/herself. I'd say that's a pretty "successful" cancellation. It's just so common, it has been normalized.

And the abortion clinics, it's not like the threats have stopped these past 10 years. It's just old news. That kind of shunning has never stopped. If it had stopped, we'd have abortion clinics everywhere in America.

And again, we're not saying that cancelling does not happen on the left, but claiming that cancelling is a tool predominantly used by the left is just nonsense. It's not just the left doing it. If you think it is, you've been watching too much Fox News.

Honestly it sounds like every description of conservatives is coming from not only 10 years ago but 20 years ago. Keapernick is a terrible example because he had shoulder surgery and then lost nearly every game of the following season before he was cut by the most liberal team in the league, the San Francisco 49ers, and also to mention he had very key interceptions in playoff games that were all but won. The claim that anything bad that happens based on sex, race, religion are conservatives is patently false. These are every democrats talking points only used to demonize their opposition. Abortions are not under threat at all, unless you count those claiming that you can’t have an abortion after 8 months pregnant when the baby can be born instead. However, this is not cancel culture. It would be cancel culture if someone had an abortion and because of it they were fired from their job. When we talk about cancel culture it is very specific to overreaction, typically losing revenue from millions of views per the direction of big tech censors and even banks and credit card companies these days. I have no doubt both sides are attempting cancel culture and I have no doubt the only ones who can quantify this would be the big tech companies themselves, but the rules posted themselves by big tech align with left leaning ideas it is all but obvious who would be breaking those rules. Reddit for example specifically allows in its written rules hateful speech against whites but disallows it against all the groups you would expect.

> Abortions are not under threat at all, unless you count those claiming that you can’t have an abortion after 8 months pregnant when the baby can be born instead.

Have you been living under a rock someplace?

https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/txpep/research-briefs/senate-...

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-health-...

The Texas law was not supported by mainstream conservatives, it was done by Christians and the federal law is not under threat, this yet another thing meant rile people up to earn votes for a specific party. There is a zero percentage chance the Supreme Court re-hears the case on abortion.

> the federal law is not under threat

There is no Federal law governing abortion. State law governs abortions, subject to Roe v. Wade and subsequent cases that provide a Constitutional right to abortion within certain parameters that the States cannot abrogate.

The Supreme Court is already considering a Mississippi abortion law case (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, nr. 19-1392) that, depending on the outcome, could significantly curtail this right, possibly lowering the deadline to 15 weeks. The decision is expected in June.

> There is a zero percentage chance the Supreme Court re-hears the [Texas] case on abortion.

If they do, will you come back and admit you were wrong?

Federal case law is essentially law. This is all besides my original point that abortion debates are not cancel culture but a political argument. But yes absolutely I’ll admit I was wrong if it ever happens.

> The Texas law was not supported by mainstream conservatives

This is a classic No True Scotsman argument: that law was enacted by Texas Republicans and has been protected by the Republicans at various levels of federal court up to the Supreme Court, and copies of that law are being enacted by Republicans in other states. If you want us to believe that’s not aligned with mainstream conservatism, show that the larger conservative movement is fighting it.

Yeah, it's insane watching this degree of confirmation bias unfold real time just reading this thread.

Directly addressing what this person is saying with the facts isn't going to work, because it's obvious that nothing can convince them otherwise. I think it's better to look at why they've fixated themselves so strongly on this opinion and are so desperate to maintain it.

You are right other conservatives won’t fight against it but it is also only religious conservatives that support it, at least banning abortion per the Texas law. In my own experience in a heavily democrat area, every single democrat I’ve met also support a ban on abortion after a certain period of time and the debate is more over how long or what point after conception until it should be banned.. that point is often swayed lower and I’d argue too low with conservatives, but even as you see in the Texas, it’s still allowable for 6 weeks after, not at birth. Mainstream conservatives rarely call for banning this early barring religious conservatives. And while this may sound no true Scotsman, conservatives are much less religious than they used to be in my experience, the country itself is also much less religious and this is allowing the mainstream conservatives to move away from religion based positions.

1) The law compels people to out abortions and circumvents the law of the land - I.e. the SCOTUS ruling - by forcing it into a civil court matter. You seriously don’t see the issue there? How about democrats pass a parallel law where instead of abortions it’s because you used hate speech? How would you feel about that?

2) 6 weeks is not a long time. Plenty of people don’t find out their pregnant until 4-6 weeks, many later than that. You think it’s right that they can be forced to make that decision with only a few days to consider it? Or worse, that they have to leave the state to get one because they’re past 6 weeks? There are so many problems with this.

You are arguing against things I am not arguing for and never have. Literally I wrote I also thought 6 weeks was too soon in the post you are responding to and you continue to flame me here. Your hypocrisy is getting upset I called your post a lie, when you were completely factually incorrect, as you admitted, all the while in your first response calling me “blatantly dishonest.” I’m sorry but that is literally you calling me a liar first, and using in your explanation lies, even if by mistake. Now, after you are claiming that I am the one flaming you in your other post and saying you will no longer respond, continue to respond and flame me, do you understand why this conversation is not productive from your end?

1) Relax. I wasn’t aware you were the same person. It’s not a big deal.

2) you wrote “you still get 6 weeks,” as if that’s adequate.

I’m sorry you think your brand of conservative politics is the party line, because frankly it isn’t and even you - who I disagree with - deserve to be represented by a party that shares your values. The GOP is the anti-abortion party. They will continue claw back any and every part of a woman’s right to choose until Roe v. Wade is functionally overturned, as they have done for decades. Whether or not that is the majority opinion is irrelevant because they are doing it anyway and your denial of that reality doesn’t make it go away. Much like most Americans don’t want weed illegal anymore but neither party seems interested in making a move at the federal level despite the public mandate.

>The Texas law was not supported by mainstream conservatives

Then how is it currently an enacted law that is also being copied in other GOP-controlled states?

Kaepernick [edit: almost] had a ring. You think the Browns couldn’t have used him? The Lions? The Bengals? Your point is also moot when a former NFL exec confirms he was blackballed for his protest.

https://sports.yahoo.com/in-light-of-george-floyds-death-ex-...

>Colin Kaepernick was not bounced by NFL team owners because of his skill. He was not bounced because of salary demands. And he was not bounced because he wanted a starting job. No, he was rejected by NFL team owners because he became a financial liability, kneeling for social justice and igniting a telling firestorm with President Donald Trump.

You can sit here and argue all day about whether or not they’re within their rights to do it, and frankly I would probably agree with you. They are a business, they have to make business decisions. But to pretend it’s about his skill as a player is blatantly dishonest.

NFL teams have continued to let plenty of players who have suffered injuries and had less-than-stellar records continue to play. If you can demonstrate that there's a clear pattern of players with Kaepernick's on-the-field record being treated similarly, then your argument holds some water; but otherwise, it's just a convenient pretext.

Comparisons to other players are just silly, yes it has happened before but that doesn’t mean anything when it comes down to an individual. I’m not sure what else is needed to explain what makes a poor QB other than losing records in both recent and lifetime stats, injuries, and failure under pressure? If that isn’t a pattern showing lack of skill I don’t know what is. He is also aging as a scrambling QB, everyone knows speed diminishes rapidly with age and when this weapon is only getting worse, and your other weapon, your arm, was injured, then there isn’t much left. He has been scouted by tens and none decided to pick him up, this in itself should be primary evidence that he was give a chance and failed.

> He has been scouted by tens and none decided to pick him up

If you're on the margin performance-wise, and you are also carrying this controversial political baggage, then that baggage is likely going to be the tipping factor. The argument you have to convincingly make is that even without the baggage, Kaepernick would not be playing. That is why comparisons to players with similar performance records are relevant, not "silly."

I think that I am still making a compelling argument on his performance even without the PR issues. I mean the browns just signed a QB with 22 active sexual assault cases, it’s a reach to believe that they would not sign Kaepernick because one time he upset some cops and overzealous fans by kneeling. He takes too much blame for starting that but it was a very popular trend among players afterwards and many players kneel without issue.

You can't talk to people like this here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I was referring to the bias ignorance and pressure that causes there to always be someone on the opposing side of a political topic as per his claim that one executives statement on Kaepernick was true. If you will also note he called me blatantly dishonest when he in fact has provable lies in his statement which he admits.

"Provable lies" come on. I forgot a word, which I corrected. Ease off the throttle man.

I forgot "almost." He's been to the superbowl. He was a superbowl quarterback.

As for lies, did you read the article I linked? A former NFL exec literally admits to it.

Again, as I said that is one persons opinion who through either ignorance, pressure, or bias will choose a political side. We have former military generals claiming there were aliens found but one person’s claim while it makes a story for an article does not represent evidence.

To compare a former exec listing a very possible situation to the ravings about aliens is, once against, blatantly dishonest.

To get back to the original point, I don't know what to tell you. If you think cancelling is a tactic only implemented by the left, then there is a very thick layer of irony in your "one persons opinion who through either ignorance, pressure, or bias will choose a political side" line.

Have a good one man.

This is just common sense in my eyes that you should scrutinize a source when especially if it comes from a very small group or one person with motivations to pick a political side and you will find one person to pick an opposite side in every case. I already stated that cancel culture comes from both sides and we don’t have data to prove this definitively but when the cancellation is an overreaction it is typically coming from one side and in particular on claims of sex, race, and religion. I’m not going to pretend there’s a clear cut line what makes someone right or left but when it comes to specific topics big tech will always lean to one side of the line.

> you will find one person to pick an opposite side in every case

Of course there will be someone with a contrary opinion in almost every controversial issue. The key is to closely scrutinize the competing arguments based on the strength of the argument, the available data, and your moral compass, and make your judgment based on those. Personally, I am biased towards the positions that are based on the most intellectually-rigorous arguments supported by voluminous data; and I'd hope the type of people who frequent HN do the same, regardless of their political affiliation.

>I’m not going to pretend there’s a clear cut line what makes someone right or left but when it comes to specific topics big tech will always lean to one side of the line.

You should check this once a day and see the reality. https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10/status/150666209988752998...

I'm done man. This is just a flamewar at this point.

Several teams have scouted him and given him a chance, are you saying they went through all that effort just to save face?

So just because they’re often bad at it when done nationwide suddenly it doesn’t count? Give me a break.

They’re literally banning books in multiple states. But let me guess, “doesn’t count”?

They just did.