←back to thread

165 points xqcgrek2 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.446s | source
Show context
iandanforth ◴[] No.45043708[source]
This is McCarthyism. You take a polarizing word, then you attack your enemies by claiming they are that thing, and couch the whole thing in an "investigation" whose outcome is predetermined.

There is no merit to discussing if the target is that thing, it doesn't matter. It's an ideological attack. If you take it on its face then the attackers win because you're treating them as if they were honest participants in a discussion, which they are not.

And remember even if the investigation (which is a farce) goes nowhere, allowing it to exist unchallenged means that some people are going to be harassed and intimidated. But, that too is the point, fear is what they want.

replies(9): >>45043799 #>>45043943 #>>45044019 #>>45044141 #>>45044186 #>>45044853 #>>45045770 #>>45047416 #>>45047503 #
1. onetimeusename ◴[] No.45047503[source]
Why do you say that? What makes you say this is McCarthyism which was an accusation made against people in the House? I read the article and it says they are opening a probe into foreign influence peddling and people receiving taxpayer funding to do influence peddling and they asked for information from the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation. You might disagree those are worth investigating but that sounds a lot more reasonable than McCarthyism. The headline makes it seem like they are simply just investigating bias.
replies(1): >>45047672 #
2. cherry_tree ◴[] No.45047672[source]
What do you think McCarthyism is?