
The Cultural Purge Will Not Be Televised - StuntPope
https://www.easydns.com/blog/2017/02/24/the-cultural-purge-will-not-be-televised/
======
AaronFriel
This sort of thing seems better on a personal blog than that of a company. As
opposed to sounding like an enlightened defense of freedom of speech - there's
plenty of capacity for doing that in professional writing[1] - it reads like
that of someone with an axe to grind, who feels like their favored brand of
politics is being tarnished unfairly and claiming victimhood.

Engaging in such victimhood using the platform of your company's blog doesn't
sit well with me. As the negative consequences of him writing this will almost
certainly be negligible in relative terms for the company, it undermines his
argument. If there's a real "cultural purge", we should expect EasyDNS to go
bankrupt for defending groups alleged to be "white supremacist", "racist", and
"Nazi".

But I gather they won't be. I didn't hear of "#deleteshopify" until I read
this post, and I expect I won't hear about it again.

If you're reading this, future people, do me a favor and reply to this thread
when #boycotteasydns has caused the company to fold. We can talk about
"cultural purges" then.

[1] - [http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/26/chancellor-statement-
on-...](http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/26/chancellor-statement-on-
yiannopoulos/)

~~~
Oxitendwe
>If there's a real "cultural purge", we should expect EasyDNS to go bankrupt
for defending groups alleged to be "white supremacist", "racist", and "Nazi".

So, for his claim that there are often unpleasant consequences for being
vocally on one side of the cultural divide to be true, they have to
specifically happen to him? This is a ridiculous assertion, whether he is
correct has absolutely nothing to do with whether he himself faces those
consequences.

~~~
AaronFriel
Fair point, I should weaken my claim. How do we define a "cultural purge"? I
would suggest that for any definition we could agree on, we would agree that
the purge the author supposes is not occurring.

There are instances of boycotts succeeding - but those aren't "cultural
purges", those are isolated incidents and by corollary to what you wrote, we
should discount individual instances. It's the aggregate that matters, and the
traffic to alt-right blogs and websites only seem to be growing. The
"victimhood" of Breitbart (and other alt-right blogs) seems entirely
manufactured.

Ironically I think here the author again defeats his own claims. I'm not aware
of peer-reviewed studies, but I gather from the disparate press reports and
some nonprofit publications that anti-Semitic, racist, and white supremacist
sites are on the rise. The author even points to the need to disallow such a
site on their platform. Ample existence of the examples of such sites only
lend credence to the belief that there is not a cultural purge going on!

What a strange definition for the term "cultural purge" we would have if we
could assert that it's occurring despite a surge in outspoken sentiment that
is being "purged".

------
muninn_
Interesting. What I've been seeing from my fellow liberals lately is freedom
of everything except difference in opinion. I think Milo, for example, is a
gigantic troll and probably a bad person... but he has a right to speak
freely, just like Westboro Baptist Church does.

~~~
david38
What Milo does is one thing. What the "church" does is another.

The "church" has a business model of provoking people into confronting them
physically so they can sue them. Basically they really run to daddy when they
get slapped for poking someone in the eye.

~~~
StuntPope
I think munnin_ has it right. We once killed a sizeable deal here (at easyDNS)
because it included providing DNS for the Westboro church domains. We just
didn't want any part of it.

Again - our decision, no coercion.

Westboro has a right to speak (although not to disrupt the activities of
others). But nobody has to agree to give them a platform.

The big distinction is: are you acting under your own volition or under
coercion.

------
rendall
I agree with this article mostly, but I do take strong issue with contrasting
"boycott" with "free speech". Boycotting _is_ an expression of free speech and
freedom of association. It's unlawful for the (US) government to punish you
for your speech, but private citizens can shop elsewhere, or ostracize you, or
invite you to tea - and encourage others to do so - at will.

That said, I share the OPs dismay at the wholesale unthinking tribalism in US
politics today. It's hard to overstate the intellectual dishonesty and
hypocrisy on display.

------
alphabettsy
TL;BS. Shopify makes it possible for Breitbart to make money selling
merchandise. They claim they have nothing to do with it otherwise and do not
support their views, people on internet are mad anyways because of course they
make money from having Breitbart as a client. Author claims Shopify is being
unfairly targeted and the left is continuing its "cultural purge" on free-
association and free-speech. Both of which are interesting? claims since
boycotts have long been apart of American history "see Tea Party & Montgomery
Bus Boycott" and doesn't even mention all of the boycotts of the right against
Target (bathrooms & toys), Starbucks(cups says Happy Holidays, & hiring
Refugees), and whatever other campaign is on One Million Moms
([https://onemillionmoms.com/current-
campaigns](https://onemillionmoms.com/current-campaigns)) and other groups.

My point is that if you choose to do business with a group that may be
targeted by social groups on any side because of their political or social
positions you run the risk of being associated with that group and might
suffer the same consequences.

~~~
Oxitendwe
The issue here is that Shopify are being judged not for their actual stances,
but for who they do business with. This is different from boycotting something
because of their actual positions. What if no one would rent a building to
Breitbart, or provide their offices and employees with internet access, or
sell vehicles to their employees, or provide web hosting for them, because of
the threat of boycotts against them for doing business with Breitbart? The
practice of boycotting people for association rather than actual opinions is
seriously bad news if you actually care about free speech, because it means
that any group with enough buying power to affect the bottom line of anyone
you do business with now is in control of whether or not you're allowed to
exist.

~~~
AaronFriel
If we ever get to a point in society where huge swaths of the population are
unwilling to associate with Breitbart in any way, and legislators begin adding
laws to the books about segregating businesses into categories of "have dealt
with Breitbart" and "have not" and try to (unconstitutionally) apply different
rules to each, then perhaps the courts and the public should take your claims
seriously.

But until then, you are describing a slippery slope that doesn't make me feel
bad one whit.

And to provide an example of this:

"What if no one would rent a building to the American Nazi Party, or provide
their offices and employees with internet access, or sell vehicles to their
employees, or provide web hosting for them, because of the threat of boycotts
against them for doing business with the American Nazi Party?"

Or let's take it back 50 years:

"What if no one would rent a building to the American Communist Party, or
provide their offices and employees with internet access, or sell vehicles to
their employees, or provide web hosting for them, because of the threat of
boycotts against them for doing business with the American Communist Party?"

Or substitute any extreme you like. The KKK, for example.

What you're misunderstanding about free association is that every person - and
every business - has the right to choose _not_ to associate as well.
Association is not compulsory, and neither is listening to speech. Bad actors
like "actual Nazis" (I am not claiming Breitbart is such) do not have a
constitutional right to do business with anyone they like. Free association
doesn't mean the market must be blind to the participants involved.

------
StuntPope
This post has been repeatedly [flagged] ... which is exactly what the ENTIRE
ARTICLE IS ABOUT.

~~~
dang
True, but it's also standard for HN users to flag rhetorical advocacy pieces,
especially ones with sensational titles.

My gut feeling is that more users are flagging this one because they think
it's off-topic for HN than because they disagree with it, but that's just a
guess.

~~~
StuntPope
That would actually make me feel better if you're right.

That said in my mind it's on-topic for HN since YC themselves have been on the
receiving end of what the article talks about (it does mention the outcry to
remove Thiel from the FB board, but not that YC also faced pressure to cut
ties to Thiel)

The point is: Thiel is completely within his rights to endorse Trump. It's not
like he forfeited his humanity by doing so.

~~~
alphabettsy
Nobody is accusing him of being unlawful or outside his rights to endorse him.
Nor, as far as I'm aware, has he been deprived on any right by that
association.

It seems you have an issue with people speaking out against him. He chose to
publicly support Trump, he could've voted and contributed behind closed doors
like most other wealthy people. He chose to make his opinion public because he
understands that he is influential and he hoped to exert that influence, but
you can't have it both ways.

~~~
StuntPope
There was a public outcry to have him ejected from the FB Board because of his
political beliefs. That is no different than wanting to get somebody fired
from their job for theirs. The attempt failed, "the Zuch" was criticized for
defending Thiel's right to having his own opinion.

~~~
alphabettsy
So everything is working exactly as it's supposed to... People voice their
opinion to those in power, those in power make a decisions and make their
stance known. Are you saying you don't want these people to receive public
criticism? Otherwise I'm not sure what there is left. Nothing actually
happened, just people exchanging words on either side.

~~~
grzm
It's not clear to me what you're pushing back against. 'StuntPope expressed
that they thinks this submission is relevant to HN and has been repeatedly
flagged, and understood and expressed acceptance (with some additional,
civilly expressed comments) for the explanation 'dang provided.

You seem to be reading a lot more into their comments than is needed. I read
nothing in their comments other than clarification based on what's in your
replies. They've just expressed a desire to discuss the submission, which
seems to actually support the idea of criticism.

~~~
alphabettsy
He said:"The point is: Thiel is completely within his rights to endorse Trump.
It's not like he forfeited his humanity by doing so."

Which implies that someone was arguing the contrary.

~~~
grzm
Which, as they clarified, there has been. I've witnessed as much on HN.

They explicitly did _not_ imply that something was unlawful, which is how you
phrased your reply:

 _Nobody is accusing him of being unlawful or outside his rights to endorse
him. Nor, as far as I 'm aware, has he been deprived on any right by that
association._

~~~
alphabettsy
There have been people attempting to take his rights away or claim it was
unlawful? Lol.

------
BR00KS
"Your only recourse is whether to associate or disassociate with somebody."

Might I suggest disassociating yourself from the federal government by
learning the difference between state citizenship and federal citizenship and
take appropriate action.

More info here:

[http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/taxes.htm#CITIZENSHIP](http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/taxes.htm#CITIZENSHIP)

------
abandonliberty
Anyone else catch the Obama quote?

>There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through
information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to
discard

> truthiness refers to the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes
> or believes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true.

------
StuntPope
flagged again

