Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I feel like we're talking about two wildly different things.

On the one hand, we have a Tucker Carlson character doing, well, Tucker Carlson things. People got upset, started listing off all the advertising relationships on his show, and raised a ruckus. This isn't some ancient history scenario, it's happening now, in real life.

On the other, we have slaver statues being dumped into harbors in England. This is way more in line with your comment.

Are you lumping them both together into cancel culture? They seem pretty different in many respects to me, though they do share some characteristics as well. I'm trying to understand and would appreciate your thoughts.




They lie at the same roots, don't they? Different people at different level of engagement in different arenas, but acting on the same baseline ideas. Whether ten years ago or centuries ago, rummaging through the past is the same, only some of the results have more immediate effect. Many times that person was in the wrong, but may have learned since. Many times, only selective views on the person are presented, to shape a narrative of evil. The same tools, the same motivations, just in different contexts and scopes.


Again, I am not talking about 10 years ago, I'm talking about 10 hours ago or 10 days ago. I realize time is a continuum and that's why it gets wonky, but surely people can respond to something someone has said now, with their words and freedom to associate, and not try to conflate that with judging slave traders by today's standards.

I mean, I'm still wildly against statues of slave traders, but to me they're different topics entirely.


That much can be fair. How often is it that the offending statements were only just made? Does that make up the majority of cases? Is the impulse based on any different reason?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: