Can it not he argued that the recent phenomenon of cancelling / treating those accused of these acts as criminals and trying to ruin their livelihoods, means applying a criminal level of evidence is warranted?
We have played this argument out and I'd love to get over beating this dead horse, here and all over the tech industry. Go look elsewhere in the comments. Fantastical conspiracy webs ("trying to ruin their livelihoods") require according evidence, not refutation. We have a slew of people on the record, and direct response from Coinbase. Not to mention that no one is getting "cancelled" here.
The bigger conversation to be had is that cancel culture doesn't exist as you describe even.
> I'd love to get over beating this dead horse, here and all over the tech industry
Among the people I know closely enough, I see almost no one who has changed their minds ever since these discussions started circa 2015. And I have been in the tech industry for a long time. So keep beating that dead horse, or beat it in a different way.
> Not to mention that no one is getting "cancelled" here.
Some people are trying very hard. NYT article seems like a smear campaign as part of that overall effort.
> cancel culture doesn't exist as you describe even.
In my experience, it does. I personally know many other people for whom it does. Maybe your bubble is very thick? Maybe people are not honest and open with you because you are highly opinionated and based on this comment, not open to an open dialog?
> I'm simply tired of this.
If you keep communicating the same way as in this comment, you will keep getting tired. I don't think cancel culture, SJWs or suppression of uncomfortable viewpoints are going to stop anytime soon, nor the secret revulsion of these trends.
If you go look at my other comments over the thread, how I respond very much varies based on context. I spent energy where I think others will actually benefit.
> Among the people I know closely enough, I see almost no one who has changed their minds ever since these discussions started circa 2015.
You've pointed this out yourself, why in the world would I keep beating the dead horse here? Do you think people haven't tried different ways? Why should I expend that effort to people who are clearly dug in to the other side permanently? I look for good-will first to engage with people who appear to be open in some way, like in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25234798
The thing you're missing here is that the purpose of this type of response is not for you or OP. It's to show that this type of response is not blindly agreed upon or grounded. When its espoused with no response or criticism, it has a meaningful negative effect on marginalized people in this industry. To quote someone else on this top level thread:
> When not enough people speak up, that can send an implicit message that some life-sucking background noise from others is OK with everyone else, when it's not.
Do you want to have that bigger conversation, or are you tired?
Is the assertion that you’re tired expected to lend weight to the version (that cancel culture is a bogus notion) for which you’re evoking (but not presenting) a defense?
No, it's a commentary on how much lifting is expected to be done by each side in a good faith discussion and the imbalance exhibited all over the current discussion. Everyone has the same tools - if you want to understand the perspective you asked for, you can absolutely do that!
