Blog Anonymously • Hacker News Board

Re: Blog Anonymously

#71

Post by syshum » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:19 PM UTC

Fiveplus wrote: post #69

syshum wrote: post #32

Having gotten my start on the internet mid 90's it always amazes me the number of people that attached their offline identities to their online identies This was just something that was unheard of back then. It was an extension of "Stranger Danger" that you did not reveal who you were to the wide internet, sure some of your close friends may have known your online name but it was not openly broadcasted Fast forward t…

The issue with emerging and easily accessible technology is that in 2020, especially for the younger folks venturing into their first jobs - at least some kind of social media presence is a pre-requisite. Our school's career center gave a presentation where this issue was raised. What if a student wants to not associate his/her political thoughts lest they create a hindrance for a future employer digging through the…

>>A ghost profile seems a red flag, as such a non-existent one

I guess my future is going to be limited then, because I have never, and will never have a "real" social media presence. Ever.

That is a hard, never going to happen, even if I have live under a bridge

Re: Blog Anonymously

#72

Post by femiagbabiaka » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:23 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #68

M2Ys4U wrote: post #40

>We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. We really, really aren't. >If speech has consequences that are administered outside the law, then it's not really free. Just take a moment and thing about what you just wrote. It's absolutely nonsense. I can't go in to a job interview and call the panel a bunch of cunts and then expect to be hired. That's a consequence o…

So a culture that respects free speech something like this would occur --- Person A: I think we should have strong border protection and limited immigration for these reasons ...... Person B: Well I understand and respect your position however I disagree because of these reasons..... --- Now a society with out a respect for free speech it would go -- Person A: I think we should have strong border protection and limit…

I think this is a compelling hypothetical, but I can't think of a single person who only said they were in support of strong border protection and limited immigration and was subject to anything like what you're saying. Could you provide an example of what you mean?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#73

Post by jlg23 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:26 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #4

This goes into the how, but to me the more interesting question is the 'why'. Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? I only have one example of why; I'm a genuinely curious and open person and I like having my beliefs tested, some of my beliefs are nuanced enough that I sometimes break down my current beliefs and my reasons into blog posts. Things that I thin…

> Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into?

There are still quite some monarchies around in which you go to prison for speaking up against the rulers (in most you will be convicted for unrelated, made up charges).

Re: Blog Anonymously

#74

Post by Emma_Goldman » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:27 PM UTC

newacct583 wrote: post #39

wGeF7H8Z59y985y wrote: post #13

> Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. They've already come for anyone who showed even the faintest trace of dissent from the mindlessly woke mob's narrative. Next they'll come for those who have stayed silent. Failure to project virtue signaling will soon be us…

Good grief. What happened to "Democrats are coming for your guns"? At least that one sorta made sense. Can you name three significant ideas whose debate has been suppressed online? Because I'll bet that for each of those I can find a 200+ comment flame war on this very site. > They've already come for anyone who showed even the faintest trace of dissent from the mindlessly woke mob's narrative They did? Who won?

It's an unhelpful exaggeration to suggest that speech is being suppressed in the conventional sense that the threat or use of coercion is being employed to restrict speech.

But we care not only about whether debate is suppressed. We also care about the quality of debate, the culture, values and practices through which we engage with one another in the public sphere.

The concern over 'cancel culture' would be, I think:

   (1) certain arguments are beyond the pale of legitimate debate

   (2) those arguments should not be engaged with, or their proponents persuaded, but should be met with opprobrium and abuse

   (3) we can safely infer that someone has a malignant character if they make an individual statement which is considered illegitimate

   (4) if someone makes an illegitimate statement then we should ostracise them, deplatform them, and agitate their employer to fire them

Obviously 'cancel culture' is internally varied, and this list presents some of its worst aspects, while ignoring what can be said in favour of it. But my point is that we can reasonably argue over several of its features. The problem as I see it is how to criticise unreflective and exclusionary discourses, while engaging in debate, persuading rather than abusing, avoiding heavy-handed retributivism, and thinking for ourselves.

It is also worth asking whether cancel culture is more of a problem online that it is offline because it is encouraged by the design of several platforms, most egregiously Twitter.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#75

Post by baby-yoda » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:28 PM UTC

newacct583 wrote: post #60

dx87 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What he posted was on an internal message board specifically for employees to discuss controversial subjects. It was only public because another google employee got upset and made it public.

I probably should have said "broadly", I guess. But I still don't see how that differs from the union folks, who used an internal messaging system to notify other employees about their rights. Again, I can't help but think what you people really want is the inalienable right, not to "free speech", but to be Offensive Without Consequence. And again, Damore is a genuine celebrity now, he's a very bad example of the kin…

>you people

what is this ambiguous group you speak of?

>Offensive Without Consequence

is being offended a protected class? why is the "right to be offended" more important than the "right to offend"?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#76

Post by newacct583 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:33 PM UTC

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #74

newacct583 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good grief. What happened to "Democrats are coming for your guns"? At least that one sorta made sense. Can you name three significant ideas whose debate has been suppressed online? Because I'll bet that for each of those I can find a 200+ comment flame war on this very site. > They've already come for anyone who showed even the faintest trace of dissent from the mindlessly woke mob's narrative They did? Who won?

It's an unhelpful exaggeration to suggest that speech is being suppressed in the conventional sense that the threat or use of coercion is being employed to restrict speech. But we care not only about whether debate is suppressed. We also care about the quality of debate, the culture, values and practices through which we engage with one another in the public sphere. The concern over 'cancel culture' would be, I think…

Are those list items really that bad, though? Paraphrasing #4: you're saying that we need to welcome, broadcast and hire people who we genuinely think are vile and awful?

Where's the middle ground. If we can't fire, say, violent racists, and we can't escape their words, and we can't avoid them socially, what can we do?

I think the answer to that, if you look at it carefully, is going to be pretty much isomorphic to what we're already doing. There are excesses and mistakes (David Shor shouldn't have been fired), but that's true of all things.

What I don't see is a definition of "cancel culture" as a "problem" that isn't basically a defense of conservative opinions.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#77

Post by FriendlyNormie » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:33 PM UTC

M2Ys4U wrote: post #40

>We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. We really, really aren't. >If speech has consequences that are administered outside the law, then it's not really free. Just take a moment and thing about what you just wrote. It's absolutely nonsense. I can't go in to a job interview and call the panel a bunch of cunts and then expect to be hired. That's a consequence o…

No post body was provided.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#78

Post by epx » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:36 PM UTC

wGeF7H8Z59y985y wrote: post #13

> Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. They've already come for anyone who showed even the faintest trace of dissent from the mindlessly woke mob's narrative. Next they'll come for those who have stayed silent. Failure to project virtue signaling will soon be us…

And you have very active extremists in both sides, so it is guaranteed you are always wrong and always in danger of being cancelled.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#79

Post by dx87 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:36 PM UTC

bakedbeanz wrote: post #70

giancarlostoro wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something ironic about your post being downvoted or cancelled depending on your point of view. I think to an extent we seem to be heading towards a thought police society as evident by people losing their jobs over things they do or say that go viral online (if you need references I'll be happy to pull some up, but here in the USA at least its happened a number of times), this is often called cancel culture. We see i…

Being downvoted is not being cancelled. If people don't agree with what you're saying, they're welcome to exercise their own right to speak and tell you so.

It's a little different on HN since a comment that gets enough downvotes is made invisible to other people.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#80

Post by giancarlostoro » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:43 PM UTC

femiagbabiaka wrote: post #72

syshum wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So a culture that respects free speech something like this would occur --- Person A: I think we should have strong border protection and limited immigration for these reasons ...... Person B: Well I understand and respect your position however I disagree because of these reasons..... --- Now a society with out a respect for free speech it would go -- Person A: I think we should have strong border protection and limit…

I think this is a compelling hypothetical, but I can't think of a single person who only said they were in support of strong border protection and limited immigration and was subject to anything like what you're saying. Could you provide an example of what you mean?

Except its not I have seen people called Neonazis just for being Republican or siding with Trump whether or not they are "Trump supporters" on issues. Even saying the name "Trump supporter" is evidence alone that there is an element of cancel culture. A woman was rejected from a college recently for posting a MAGA video on Tik Tok. Some developer is being called a Neonazi for protesting against an open source org that banned someone from a conference for wearing a MAGA hat.

I say this too often on HN: today they silence the voice of those you disagree with, tomorrow its your voice.

Not to mention: master-slave throughout tech, master branch in git, are all examples of absurd cancel culture. Meanwhile minorities shake their head.