> I don’t think we should organise a society around the sensibilities of the most easily upset people because then you have a very neurotic society.
Very well said. This is arguably what social media has done. From what people say and think, to the reaction to current events, everything suddenly is about the most sensitive, risk averse, neurotic interpretation. We need to be better at tuning this out.
I would extend this and say anti-vaxers and covid-deniers are also a symptom of this. The "freedom of speech" group are clearly just as easily upset, but about different things.
The fact that parts of some governments in some countries support and enable these views suggests we're already quite far down the path to a neurotic society.
They don't call for other to be deplatformed. The prominence is mainly due to their opposition ironically, so no, they are not the same. This isn't a competition about who is the better human in the first place.
The better approach was actually hands off moderation. We are now in danger of governments enforcing ID for social media because some people misbehave.
That is of course counter productive to any civil liberties, so the censors don't even have a cause at all. But you cannot blame politics or individuals here, these are the rules of public relations.
The first error was to ban whole communities because of demands from others. This will now be repeated over and over.
It is a very prominent topic among artists, but there is also fear. You only need one unemployed guy with a mission to save the world from hate or misinformation and the whole thing can blow up. This is even worse then the eternal september.
> The same man who successfully sued a writer for hurting his fee-fees by saying he was no longer funny.
Do you have some more information on that? The only thing that turns up in a quick search is some stuff about copyright suits, but that's probably not what you mean.
Perhaps - though the Express critised a TV Show of which Cleese was in for 6 minute out of a 2 hour show. Then pinned it on Cleese as "his show" but Cleese didnt make it or in it much. Express was given opportunity to fix the article, refused and lost in court (after offering him £10k beforehand)... They were in the wrong.
Suing and winning over hurt fee-fees is distinct from organising a society around the sensibilities of the most easily upset people?
from the Judge's opinion:
> "He may, perhaps, by some people’s standards, be regarded as unduly sensitive about this unpleasant article but his hurt feelings are certainly genuine." -- Mr Justice Eady
No "flag" button was available, in fact I have never seen it here on HN. I am not sure how the flagging process should be initiated. Maybe the offending comment must have enough negative karma?
"Woke" was turned into a pejorative specifically in some of the most historically vile empires because the idea of the masses absorbing, confronting, and exposing unpropagandized history was too much of a risk for the ruling class.
From what I've seen the most anti-woke places are the UK, US and Japan. Anyone that understands their uncomfortable histories understands why.
Most empires are historically vile. I think “woke” became pejorative because woke people refuse to debate and act morally superior to everyone else. It’s a very off-putting attitude
>I think “woke” became pejorative because woke people refuse to debate
Quite the opposite, the anti-woke are in the process of obstructing debate. In the US the response is the ruling class banning the teaching of certain parts of US history in large states like Texas and Florida.
Most of the US "woke" are pro-police reform and reparations. If they are "anti-debate" (this claim doesn't ring true) it should be easy for you to name one prominent "woke" commentator that has refused to debate history.
30 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 70.4 ms ] threadVery well said. This is arguably what social media has done. From what people say and think, to the reaction to current events, everything suddenly is about the most sensitive, risk averse, neurotic interpretation. We need to be better at tuning this out.
The fact that parts of some governments in some countries support and enable these views suggests we're already quite far down the path to a neurotic society.
That is of course counter productive to any civil liberties, so the censors don't even have a cause at all. But you cannot blame politics or individuals here, these are the rules of public relations.
The first error was to ban whole communities because of demands from others. This will now be repeated over and over.
This is no more than John Cleese thinks people should not be allowed to criticize John Cleese.
Do you have some more information on that? The only thing that turns up in a quick search is some stuff about copyright suits, but that's probably not what you mean.
from the Judge's opinion:
> "He may, perhaps, by some people’s standards, be regarded as unduly sensitive about this unpleasant article but his hurt feelings are certainly genuine." -- Mr Justice Eady
a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Twitter in a nutshell!
From what I've seen the most anti-woke places are the UK, US and Japan. Anyone that understands their uncomfortable histories understands why.
Quite the opposite, the anti-woke are in the process of obstructing debate. In the US the response is the ruling class banning the teaching of certain parts of US history in large states like Texas and Florida.
Most of the US "woke" are pro-police reform and reparations. If they are "anti-debate" (this claim doesn't ring true) it should be easy for you to name one prominent "woke" commentator that has refused to debate history.