Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | atlantas's commentslogin

RIP Canada. Over 50% of mortgages since 2021 are variable rate!

https://www.reuters.com/article/canada-banks-mortgage-rates-...


Every mortgage rate in Canada is reevaluated every 5 years. It sucks


> The Biden administration’s decisions not to declare a no-fly zone or help transfer Polish MiGs were both good ones; they've kept their heads during a very emotional time.

Thankful for this, cooler heads prevailed. Despite relentless pressure coming from the news media and twitter demanding that we escalate.


What is it about Harry Potter and moral panics?

Then "We need to talk about Harry Potter. The story is evil and will corrupt your kids!"

Today "We need to talk about Harry Potter. The author is evil and will corrupt your kids!"


Bigots. Those freaking about satanism and Harry Potter were bigots.

JK Rowling is an anti-trans bigot. She is the one freaking out about how trans women are going to rape children or something like that.


trans women are going to rape children

Did she really state that? If so, please provide a citation.

If not, claiming this would be a grave diffamation that cannot be taken lightly, whether or not one dislikes her position on LGBTIQA+.


It was "trans women are going to rape children _or something like that_". Most reactions that I saw about J.K. Rowling's 3600-word essay point out that she equates transness with intent to rape, so I think that the original sentence with the "or something like that" is ok. Here are two links: https://wessexsolidarity.wordpress.com/2020/06/14/j-k-rowlin... https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/12/j-k-rowling-tweet-paints...


I don't see that in the articles you linked. Can you quote the evidence that she equates trans-ness with rape?

I _do_ see something about her questioning whether gender self-identification should affect whether someone is allowed to be tried for rape (since, if I understand correctly from the article you linked, the UK seems to not allow women to be tried for rape). It's difficult to follow to the original quote because some of the linked articles and original sources are paywalled.


She's definitely accused transwomen of being rapists, and wrote a book about a man who wears a dress to kill women.

Btw, the word is "defamation".

Here's an article with some documentation: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/12/j-k-rowling-tweet-paints...


Article includes no JKR quotes, but lots of quotes from enraged twitterati. She uses an Orwell quote which doesn’t refer to rape at all, just to doublethink. Please provide evidence, not smear campaigns.


> Article includes no JKR quotes

> She uses an Orwell quote which doesn’t refer to rape at all

Third paragraph of the article has a JKR quote directly referencing rape.

Not sure if it backs up the original "freaking out about..." claim, but maybe "by placing undue emphasis, perpetuates the narrative that...".


Not sure if it backs up the original "freaking out about..." claim [...]

Not at all. This quote is from a JKR tweet that she made referring to a Times article on the praxis of UK police recording rape crimes as being committed by a women when the perpetrator identifies as female (even if they have male genitalia).

So, neither did JKR (in that quote) equate trans people with rapist nor did she bring up the whole topic. Rather, she reacted to a newspaper article on the topic, and certainly not in a way that could by any stretch of the imagination be characterized as "freaking out".


Btw, the word is "defamation".

Thanks!


You are pushing the moral panic in question, and it will age even more poorly than the previous panic since it's targeting and smearing a woman instead of a story.


JK Rowling is the one targeting transpeople. They didn't come for her, she came after them.


Similarly, now we understand that the actual problem with games isn't satanism but sexism.


Same, center left here too. It feels like a cult trying to purify itself. We're impure and must be cast out. I believe, however, that it's a very loud minority that is scaring the rest of us into silence. So it appears larger than it is.


Along with electability.


Free speech. Strangely that has somehow inverted in recent years. It wasn't long ago that censorship was the domain of the right who were in a panic about what's acceptable speech and actively trying to police it.


I'm not tracking a free speech panic in recent memory. Care to be more specific?


"master branch" and "grandfathered code" and "sanity check" are just a few of the terms suddenly deemed unacceptable.

Joe Rogan says dangerous things and must be silenced. Who is a Bernie supporter smeared as alt-right for saying unapproved things.

All kinds of campus panics about "unsafe" words and ideas. One example is a professor that said a word that sounds like another word during a lecture. It made some students uncomfortable and the professor was put on immediate leave.

People being cancelled for jokes they made a decade ago.

It just goes on and on.


>All kinds of campus panics about "unsafe" words and ideas. One example is a professor that said a word that sounds like another word during a lecture.

While this is much more common now, it's not new either.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_buffalo_incident


One specific example might be recent panics over "misinformation" (e.g. covid misinformation), what I would call the idea that incorrect, contrarian, or offensive speech online isn't just bad, but fundamentally dangerous. Even if you believe this is true, there is absolutely a powerful moral panic movement that exaggerates the terribleness of misinformation, and generally places itself in opposition to free speech in its solutions that call for more and broader censorship of online platforms.

Of course this perspective relies on a few base assumptions, such as: 1) free speech exists as an ideal aside from legal protections, 2) corporate censorship is a threat to this ideal, and 3) misinformation isn't as bad as the alarmists claim it is. If you don't agree with those points, it might not appear as a moral panic to you, which may explain some of the confusion.


Thanks for doing this!

What would be your advice to new platforms that want to take a free speech approach, while attracting users across the entire political spectrum? (to avoid the fate of Parlor and Rumble)


If it involves money and it's something you don't like, you call it a pyramid scheme. Twitter discourse 101!


"I used to be fairly optimistic that we could get through a period of consistently higher tensions with China without provoking a huge racist freakout against Asian Americans but the current reaction against all things Russian is causing me to revise that way way way downward."

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1501990346170978304


That's when the rubber meets the road. It's easy for Apple to virtue signal in this case, but I have a feeling they'll think different with China.


I replaced mainstream media with Breaking Points (https://www.youtube.com/c/breakingpoints). I've found them to be far more reliable.


A fellow breaker! :) My go-to news source for context and perspective.


Yikes. Imagine replacing media outlets with a right-wing youtuber and thinking that's far more reliable.


Yikes. Imagine thinking Breaking Points is right-wing.


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

Search: