
Welcome to America’s Cultural Revolution - drocer88
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/welcome-to-americas-cultural-revolution/
======
uranusjr
The article has good points, but all of them summed up times 10 is still
child’s play compared to the Cultural Revolution proper. I’m sorry, but this
kind of sensational labelling is exactly the one thing Americans don’t need
right now, and it’s a shame since, again, the article does have many good
points.

------
diffrinse
Personally as a continental philosophy academic prior to software, its
fascinating that a species of Michel Foucault interpretation became the
predominant Liberal/Progressive discourse

------
ttonkytonk
I just reposted this because one minute it was on the front page and the next
minute it could not be found.

~~~
Yetanfou
Use a feed reader to access sites like HN instead of the front page, that way
you get to see all content which has been posted in the order it has been
posted - there is no ranking nor any direct censoring.

~~~
ttonkytonk
I try to watch my data use so I am reluctant to download one, but I appreciate
the tip.

------
Wolfenstein98k
Important and topical article about Google Ads and monetisation.

------
sigsergv
Welcome to Soviet States of America. You can feel now exactly how it was back
in those days in USSR.

~~~
robotron
So how do you think it's been for people of color this whole time?

~~~
sigsergv
People of color are oppressed in the US, but “socialist revolution” is not a
solution. This is a deep cultural problem that must be solved from
kindergarden-age. Well educated people can defend themself.

~~~
Yetanfou
In what way are 'people of colour' \- between quotes because as far as I'm
concerned they're just people [1] - oppressed in the US? I don't just blindly
swallow the narrative espoused by BLM nor do I just blindly accept the
opposite. For more than 2 weeks I've been listening to interviews with people
who say that the narrative is in fact incorrect, that they themselves lived in
the areas where the oppression should have been rife but - again according to
them - did not seem to be. Many of these people put the blame for the
disparity in income and outlook on social programs which have led to the
dissolution of the family which is supposed to have led to the majority of
children growing up in a single-parent household combined with the fact that
schools are paid directly using local taxes which leads to poor neighbourhoods
having underfunded schools. The lack of fathers, according to them, leads to a
lack of male role models which in turn leads to boys finding their role models
elsewhere, often on the street where they see gang bangers sporting fancy
goods and gaining status. Many of the people I listened to found other role
models to follow - one of their grandparents, a retired police officer, their
own parents who came to the USA and built and existence for themselves and
their children, a teacher in school, etc. Some of them ended up in academia,
some of them started a business, some did well in sports in one way or
another, some went into politics. Some are religious and pull that factor into
the mix, others are secular or atheists. None of them seemed to be dirt-poor,
nor did any of them seem to be rich, they all seemed to be part of the middle
class.

All of them are, to use the term I dislike, 'people of colour'.

It can not be the case that both sides have it right here - either there is
systemic oppression against people based on their skin colour or there is not.
They claim this not to be the case and they back up their claims with data.
They do not claim that there are no occurrences of discrimination based on
skin colour but they _do_ claim that these are just that, individual
occurrences. What makes it possible for these people to succeed and thrive
where so many others fail to do so? Either the people I mentioned have it
right and the cause lies in the negative effects of social programs which keep
people tied to the state as the source of handouts, keeping them alive but in
poverty, or those who claim that 'people of colour' are oppressed in the USA
have it right and the ones I have been listening to for the past week live in
a fantasy.

The people I listened - and listen - to do not get heard in the media for some
reason, probably because their point of view does not fit the preferred
narrative. They get called bad names like 'Coon' and 'Uncle Tom' in the
cesspit of social media. When I hear them talk they sound convincing, when I
check the statistics they cite they seem to corroborate their position. To me
it seems they have a better grasp on the actual situation than those who makes
claims about systemic racism but, not being an American, I can not be sure. I
can just observe, read, listen, compare to similar situations in my own
experience and my own environment and draw my own conclusions. Those
conclusions lead me to believe they are closer to the truth than the loud
voices heard in the media. They do not claim that there is _no_
discrimination, they claim there is no _systemic racism_. I know
discrimination and racism exist, they even seem to be on the rise - there are
not many Jews left in the city of Malmö for this reason - but that is not the
same as _systemic racism_. I tried to table this subject before [2] and got a
number of links related to what is claimed to be _systemic racism_ related
issues in reply. I followed the links and found that most of the mentioned
issues were either not indicative of _systemic racism_ or are mentioned as not
being related to such in the interviews I've been listening to. My conclusion
still stands, either those folks I've been listening to are deluded or the
ones on the front pages of the news magazines are.

[1] Why I dislike that 'people of colour' term: From when I went to primary
school it has been drilled into me that skin colour is not important, that it
is merely superficial, that we're all people, that you should look beyond such
things like you look beyond hair colour. That culture is what binds us no
matter what colour we have. This seemed to work, things were getting better in
my country (the Netherlands), culture _did_ seem to be the binding factor -
and in other cases the dividing one. Culture, not colour. And then... things
changed. Where before it was _not done_ to be focusing on that superficial
aspect of skin colour suddenly a movement made itself heard which did _nothing
but_ focus on skin colour. And, lo and behold, there actually _is_ more
discrimination and racism in society now than there was before that movement
got started. The cause-and-effect of this is unclear since this event more or
less coincided with the arrival of a large number of migrants from the Middle-
East and Africa but to me it certainly feels like this renewed focus on skin
colour certainly did not make things better, nor does the expletive-laden
simplistic rhetoric and labelling espoused by proponents of this movement.

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23421551](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23421551)

------
drocer88
"Flagged".

We need to at least listen to opposing views. The sanctimonious silencing of
non mainstream views is scary.

~~~
ryandvm
It's really annoying to me that Hacker News is the forum which I regard as
having the highest bar for conversational civility, but sadly the community
completely refuses to discuss anything besides tech news and startup
cheerleading.

~~~
s9w
I cannot attest to that at all. A good portion of all highly voted submissions
were against the rules in the last two weeks and not tech at all.

~~~
non-entity
Not even just the submissions, these sort of articles end up in discussions
that break majority of thr _In Comments_ guidelines, shattering any illusions
that HN is somehow superior to everywhere else on the internet.

IMO, I don't think the articles should neccesarily be flagged, as the rules
seem kinda loosely interpreted on this stuff, but more of the comments should
probably be flagged than get so.

------
sbmthakur
> Sacramento Kings play-by-play announcer Grant Napear, who’s been calling
> games since 1988, was forced to resign after saying the words “all lives
> matter.”

I thought 'All lives matter' was commonsense.

~~~
padseeker
"All Lives Matter" taken literally totally is compatible with "Black Lives
Matter". However "All Lives Matter" when said is not meant literally. No one
said all livers matter until someone said "Black Lives Matters". It's an
attempt to shut down "Black Lives Matter". And the opposite of "Black Lives
Matter" isn't the opposite of "All Lives Matter", the opposite is Black Lives
Don't Matter, which is what is happening when so many black people are killed
by the police and no one says or does anything. Looking at the evidence how
black people are treated by law enforcement as well as the legal system, that
they are treated as less than equal.

~~~
s9w
As a counterpoint, look at what happens with the "it's okay to be white"
posters. Completely benign, commonsense and not a reaction to something. And
yet...

~~~
scottlocklin
Much like "radicalizing" the OK hand sign as meaning "WP," and the latest
lolcow of making hawaiian shirts a sign of terrorist groups: seems like the
right wing meme makers keep coming up with these things to alienate normies
from activist types, and the left, who above all else in current year America,
seems to enjoy thinking they have special knowledge that requires they lecture
others about what is morally acceptable, keeps taking the bait. I don't see
this pattern ending well.

~~~
s9w
I'm having honest problems parsing this comment. What's WP and what's a
lolcow?

~~~
scott_paul
Ah well WP is WordPress, of course. Truly an evil thing that we must all
apologize for, forever, or until it's perfectly bug-free.

As for lolcow, you'll be more entertained if you google it than if anyone
explains it to you.

~~~
s9w
What a time to be alive.

------
padseeker
I'm all for diversity in thought - typically though this kind of thing gets
flagged on HN.

After 9/11, invasion of Afghanistan and both Iraq wars there were songs banned
from the radio and people were thrown out of malls for wearing t-shirts that
were anti-war. Conservatives were all for that or had little to say about
stifling free speech concerns. The argument was its private property and
companies can do what they want.

There were plenty of pro war advocates that brow beat anyone who disagreed
with any of those military actions. There was very little anti war sentiment
on any of the major networks in the run-up to Iraq 2003. The disparity of pro
war to anti war advocates on all the major networks and cable news channels
was heavily tilted towards being in favor of invading Iraq. I recall watching
Nightline on ABC when it still did heavy and serious news, when Ted Koeppel
hosted it. They had a very honest forum about both sides, it was very even
handed and I felt like everyone in America should have seen it, as it may have
had more influence on the country. No one was watching it at 11:30 EST, and
quite frankly it was too late. Nobody at Nation Review complained. It was all
too convenient for them.

And now that the mood of the country has shifted so much that even Rush
Limbaugh has the hosts of a black radio program, and even the typical right
wing blowhards concede maybe there's a problem with racism and policy
brutality. And the National Review, which has trained the political and
cultural attack dog, that typically goes after those on the opposite side of
political spectrum, suddenly they are afraid that the monster they've helped
create is coming back to get them. And the comparison is so weak its pathetic.
Just because NYT subscribers (full disclosue I am one) didn't think they
should have published is crappy editorial. Suddenly we're the Chinese Cultural
Revolution. This is pathetic.

Tom Cotton, a senator who could have published his editorial anywhere, and the
NYT, a barely center left newspaper got grief about publishing it. No one is
shutting down Tom Cotton, the subscribers of the NYT could and would have
heard about Senator Cotton's ideas anywhere. What a bunch of whiners.

~~~
non-entity
> Conservatives were all for that or had little to say about stifling free
> speech concerns. The argument was its private property and companies can do
> what they want

No one is actually principled. They just use these sort of ideals as a
convenient talking point when it supports what they want, and it's not just
Republicans.

~~~
lookupthere
This is entirely true. It's also the reason that more and more extreme ideas
flourish.

The disingenuous engagement disillusions more reasonable people. People left
of center see how Barack Obama was treated for the mildest of progressive
ideas, and then decide that there's no point playing nice. I'm sure there is a
similar analogy for conservatives.

If you don't listen to reasonable, accommodating people, don't be surprised
that you are selecting for people on the extremes.

------
sammaeliam
If this is really the problem conservatives claim it is, there's a simple
solution: Get a backbone and delete your social media accounts. Most platforms
(unlike HN) provide account deletion functions (though some keep them well-
hidden).

~~~
alreadydeleted
Most of us moderates were shamed off social media years ago. I locked myself
out of my HN account because I was tired of being flame baited by Woke
tyrants. Don't use Facebook, don't use Twitter. This new ideology seems more
popular than it is because the sane people have left the internet. Most of us
keep quiet about this stuff because any wrong think will end our careers.

Congrats, Woke people. You'll never know the size of your opposition until
election day because you've made it too dangerous to question the narrative
openly.

~~~
Pfhreak
Maybe you aren't a moderate? I mean, you literally are calling anyone who
participates in the internet these days insane. That hardly scans as a
moderate take.

~~~
downerending
The ground has shifted. Someone who was a moderate in 1995 would be considered
"alt-right" today.

~~~
happytoexplain
This is pretty hyperbolic. Somebody who was "moderate" in 1995 could be
considered left-leaning or right-leaning today, depending on their specific
politics, and in fact, without any specific context like "internet free
speech", I would think a majority of them would be considered more left-
leaning on average today. And even if that isn't true, the alt-right is a
pretty specific flavor of hate-motivated shitposters, not just "people who are
heavily right-leaning".

~~~
downerending
If alt-right has any meaning at all, I agree that it _ought_ to refer to
rather extreme beliefs. In practice, the left uses it as an all-purpose slur
to refer to the half of the country that voted for the current President.
(Hence my quotes.) These days, the only thing the word means is that the one
uttering it is being an ass.

As a more specific example, though, Hillary Clinton was considered a moderate
in the 90s. Back then she notably referred to Black youths as
"superpredators". I think anyone doing so today would be seen as pretty far
right. That's an example of the ground shifting.

[https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/28/reince-
pri...](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/28/reince-priebus/did-
hillary-clinton-call-african-american-youth-su/)

------
smacktoward
_> The Times can claim that a harsh tone and a small factual error in Senator
Tom Cotton’s recent op-ed was the reason the entire paper had a meltdown, but
the staffers who revolted initially claimed that Cotton’s argument for
bringing the National Guard into cities put black lives in “danger.”_

Cotton’s entire argument was that the military should be sent into the cities
to crack protesters’ heads, which is something significantly more aggressive
than “a harsh tone.”

If I were to take to the op-ed page of the _Times_ with the argument that
national stability requires that we send the military to crack the heads of
everybody who writes for the _National Review_ , I suspect they would waver
somewhat in their commitment to unlimited free speech.

~~~
eej71
The op-ed draws a distinction between those who are peacefully protesting and
those who were rioting and looting. Dropping that context seems unfair and
misleading.

This paragraph - which is probably the source of the criticism - is clearly in
the context of how to deal with rioters who are breaking the law by causing
substantial damage.

"One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming
show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers. But local
law enforcement in some cities desperately needs backup, while delusional
politicians in other cities refuse to do what’s necessary to uphold the rule
of law."

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-
protes...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-
military.html)

------
kilo_bravo_3
Anytime someone equates private control of a private platform with an
abridging of “free speech” rights I automatically think they have suffered a
head injury that has damaged their ability to think and makes them take
nonsensical positions.

If I flood Hacker News with TIMECUBE truth and they delete my posts are they
infringing on my free speech rights?

> I am a Knower of 4 corner

>simultaneous 24 hour Days

>that occur within a single

>4 corner rotation of Earth.

If you disagree with that TRUTH you are a COMMUNIST from COMMUNIST CHINA, you
DIRTY COMMUNIST.

~~~
non-entity
Those downvoting this post are evil censors and are dangerous to society.

------
ihm
This is absurd. The New York Times opinion section is primarily for right-of-
center opinions that support the ruling class. They let in center left and
actually left ones from time to time to be able to claim it isn’t. They went a
little too far right on this one for their readership.

Have you ever seen an op-ed in the Times with a communist perspective on
current affairs?

To those who think I am being hyperbolic, here is an op-ed they published in
2018 to no backlash.

Why We Miss the WASPs: Their more meritocratic, diverse and secular successors
rule us neither as wisely nor as well.

If you want to understand more, here is an article in which Bennet (now
resigned editor of the op-ed section) describes his ideology explicitly:
[https://fair.org/home/top-nyt-editor-we-are-pro-
capitalism-t...](https://fair.org/home/top-nyt-editor-we-are-pro-capitalism-
the-times-is-in-favor-of-capitalism/)

~~~
naravara
While the article itself is kind of an exercise in dumb self-pity, and I don't
think it hits the mark at all when talking about the Times, I will say I am
noticing a pattern of "mind closing" in Leftist spaces over the past year. I
think it really kicked into gear with the Democratic primary where a lot of
the "New Left" media went into the tank for the Sanders campaign. Being too
personally invested into a political campaign (especially a losing one) has a
way of shorting out people's analytical brains. There's just a very strong
ego-preservation incentive to shut naysayers up and to engage in obviously
motivated reasoning to explain away failures, insist there is still hope even
when there isn't, and to point fingers and deflect blame. These are all bad
for keeping any sense of perspective, keeping an open mind about things,
having a movement that can actually assimilate new facts as situations evolve,
or be able to talk to people outside who aren't already bought in. It's kind
of like a fractional distillation, eventually the heat starts boiling off
different groups of people, who might have added vitality or useful
intellectual perspective to the movement, until you're left with kind of a
burnt-out sludge on the bottom.

Of course, those outlets actually have really small readerships in the grand
scheme of things. This dynamic mostly happens in smaller groups chats, forums,
subreddits, discords, etc. But these groups do tend to punch above their
weight in the minds of journalists because they're big on Twitter, and most
journalists/media people spend way too much time on Twitter. I think what
might be happening with the NYTimes debacle is people are reading their
personal experiences in whatever smaller discussion groups they've been
involved in into the Opinion section of the Times. What they're missing is the
context that this is largely centrist journalists mad at a breach of standards
rather than idealogues who can't just deal with people who disagree with them.

------
martythemaniak
The problem with this narrative is that it _really_ doesn't fit. When you
encounter situations like this, it's good to ground yourself as close to
reality as you can get. Ie, ask questions such as: How has the guns? Who has
the money? Who has the media? The clergy? etc.

In the case of the The Cultural Revolution, the answers were simple. Mao had
it all and he cracked down hard. In the case of the Soviets, the answer is
also the same - the party had all the guns, all the money, all the media and
the clergy were irrelevant.

This situation is nothing like that. Conservatives control the guns, both
officially (executive, half the legislature, most of the courts, most of law
enforcement) and unofficially (the right-wing militias, which can show up
anywhere and demand anything with guns and get treated deferentially). Money
and Media are split, with everyone amassing on each side. The clergy is very
heavily on the conservative side.

So no, this is much closer to the Prague Spring than it is to the Cultural
Revolution.

