undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdale_glass3y ago0 comments

Not really. This is just the modern myth of that in the good old days, everyone just politely protested by showing up in the street dressed in a formal suit, voiced their displeasure like a gentleman, didn't impede anything going on, didn't raise their voice, and that somehow got things done.

It's bullshit.

"Boycott" comes from the last name of Charles Boycott. Protesters threatened and beat up people that worked with him, threatened shops not to sell to him, and ramped up to such a point that it cost more for the police to defend his harvest than the harvest was worth. His blacksmith was threatened with murder, and a 12 year old carrying his mail was threatened not to keep doing it. It was definitely not a polite "Oh, we don't buy from this particular guy" stand.

Now I'm not saying that threatening people is a good thing. What I am saying is that this narrative of that once upon a time people were civilized and suddenly this new "cancel culture" thing get everything out of whack is fiction. If anything, the past was a scarier and a rougher place, because if somebody stopped you in the middle of a rural road and threatened you, there were no cameras and no recording devices.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

salawat3y ago

Which again, if that's what people want, then fine. Do that. Except when the question is put to people what they want to have be the case with what someone rlse can get away with, everyone seems uncomfortable with the prospect of lack of due process. Everyone wants a procedural. Nobody wants the procedural to get in the way with something they care about though. You can't have both.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse