Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times

Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by jollybean on Wednesday March 23, 2022 @06:45AM (#30777052)

Rubbish - Pinker is exactly the person that should be protected and there's no need to 'rehabilitate him' from anything.

Celebrities of various kinds interact with each other, that's how that works.

If you were invited to a conference and the CEO invited you on his plane because you had something interesting to say, and 10 years later we find he was a rapist, do we cancel you?

If you're going to tell me that Pinker was 'on rape island sleeping with teens girls' - then obviously that's another matter, cancel away, but as far as I know that's not the case.

This is exactly the kind of petty, toxic, vindictive posturing exemplary of bad cancel culture.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by tptacek on Wednesday March 23, 2022 @11:56AM (#30779808)

Funny, I can't think of that many other "celebrities" that contributed directly to Jeffrey Epstein's sweetheart sentence in 2008, which enabled him to continue trafficking and abusing minors in the ensuing decade.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by gjm11 on Wednesday March 23, 2022 @04:28PM (#30782921)

What do you think Pinker should have done when Dershowitz wrote to him asking "what exactly do you think this statute means"?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times by prutschman on Wednesday March 23, 2022 @05:11PM (#30783444)

I genuinely hope both of you continue this thread, even as I think it's unlikely that you'll come to common ground. I'm finding it extremely helpful to clarify my thoughts on this type of situation.

[ Parent | on HN ]