
Politically-correct witch-hunt is killing free speech - phonon
https://sarahadowney.substack.com/p/this-politically-correct-witch-hunt
======
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23719559](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23719559)

------
ajkjk
Whether others' behavior is 'right' or not is one moral question, but how you
react to it is an independent one, and there's no good outcome from vitriol.
Among other things is drives those on the other side of it to 'raise arms' in
response, leading to an all-out culture war, and I'm pretty sure it's what got
Trump selected.

There's some relief in the knowledge that it's way more prevalent on the
internet than in real life, and most people just don't care that much. But the
people most vocal on social media are also those most polarized so it _seems_
way more common than it is, which in turn sucks more people into it because
they don't know otherwise.

------
jetpackjoe
All credibility is lost when she links to PragerU for her definition of
intersectionality.

Besides that, by her own logic of free speech, people have a right to call for
boycotts/cancellations, do they not?

Free speech for me, not for thee?

~~~
gfodor
The absolutism you espouse wrapped up in guilt by association exemplifies the
problem - if that was your intent, bravo.

~~~
jetpackjoe
My intent was to say that PragerU is partisan propaganda, not a source for
definition.

At best, someone could use it as part of an adversarial process at arriving at
the truth, but the author doesn't do that. They take the definition at face
value. (A ridiculous definition at that).

I wouldn't use PETA for my definition of factory farming.

So yes, if you aren't able to find a non-partisan definition , then I assume
the whole piece is partisan, and therefore lacking credibility.

------
rudiv
You lost me when you went on a diatribe about socialism, as if the modern
democratic socialist movement in the US, for e.g., has a lot in common with
Stalin's USSR, which was a totalitarian, authoritarian state.

~~~
Yetanfou
Stalin's USSR did not start as a totalitarian, authoritarian state. The
revolution started with several 'socialist'-related factions who claimed to
want to improve the lot of the oppressed. It was after the Bolsheviks took
over when things rapidly went downhill.

Do you think the same can not happen elsewhere?

For the rest the more apt comparison is between the radical left in the USA
and Maoist China, complete with struggle sessions. No person so virtuous or
someone will find something, _anything_ for which that person will be made to
apologise. Once the apology - and with that the confession of guilt - is in
that person can be cancelled at any time, just like in Mao's China.

Also note the following, supposedly said by cardinal Richelieu: _Qu 'on me
donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de
quoi le faire pendre_ which translates to _If you give me six lines written by
the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will
hang him._. This is not a new concept, the difference between Richelieu's
France and Mao's China is that the accusers are not (yet) in power.

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/get-ready-for-the-struggle-
sess...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/get-ready-for-the-struggle-
session-11552003346)

------
crnkofe
I have to aggree with a lot of statements made in the post. Both left and
right have become more extreme defending their views, calling out 'offenders'.

Here's a small sample from across the ocean. We used to have legal and illegal
immigrants in Slovenia. Most countries still do. But since leftist media found
illegal to be a non-correct word they simply started using another one
(prebežniki - could be translated as runaways). This in a way signifies their
humanity but I ask myself what's wrong with calling a criminal a criminal?

I guess the left/right zeal is a response to politics ignoring those opinions
and it's likely to get much worse until either side gets some changes into
motion.

~~~
xook
> but I ask myself what's wrong with calling a criminal a criminal?

Certain leftists–typically the loud ones–throw away the notion of
international borders and private land ownership. With this in mind, the idea
to them that any one person is anywhere illegally is offensive.

------
Tiktaalik
> I was a Democrat for most of my life. I’m socially liberal, and that’s
> always been a key part of my values and my identity. I’m pro choice, pro
> LGBTQ rights, pro environmental issues, pro free speech, and anti-racism.

To be more clear, she's a millennial Republican.

She was born at a time where these social liberal points she tries to claim as
her beliefs deserving acclaim were already long resolved in the mainstream and
she seems to have no interest in working for further social justice beyond
what was already fought and won before she became politically aware.

For the apparent contradictions she highlights and questions she asks there
are of course reasonable answers, but she doesn't seem to have the curiosity
to dig into the issues behind what the posters on twitter are referencing.
Instead simply being distraught at the discourse that she doesn't understand.

~~~
fileyfood
It sounds like she's both socially and fiscally liberal, but doesn't identify
with the mechanisms at play in the liberal sphere because they threaten
individuals. In many states in the US, socially liberal policies like
abortion, gay rights, etc, etc are heavily blocked and contested, so I don't
agree with your characterization of these as mainstream. I agree they are
mainstream among liberal Americans.

My understanding is that her article is advocating for respectful and open
discourse, and greater detail and understanding of the issues is always
welcome. The point I see is that a person can be offended by a post or
statement, out of context of the post's intent. Currently, the discourse
supports the offended person, and condemns the poster. For example, in the
gentrification example, the retweet was focused on communicating relative
wealth of the communities, it was not focused on the political issue of
gentrification. The author was not saying she agreed with gentrification, and
was expressing any opinions about race, rather, she was trying to communicate
the relative wealth of the different communities. This backlash to her retweet
drove her to release an apology.

