Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blog Anonymously

uglyduck.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 482 posts

Re: Blog Anonymously

#131

Post by gruez »

dx87 wrote: post #79
bakedbeanz wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But it's not you being canceled, it's the comment. The equivalent on HN would require a bunch of people getting mad at a comment you made a year ago, and then downvoting all your future comments so they get buried regardless of their content. While there's probably people who do that, it's not applicable to your average grey comment.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#132

Post by zimablue »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #119
zimablue wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech" That's not true, it doesn't even really make sense. Freedom of anything is freedom from consequences for it. If I say I believe in freedom to have an abortion, noone would reasonably be said to agree if they said they also believe in freedom to have an abortion, and then immediate execution by the state afterwards. Freedom of speech in the constitutio…

The implication that "abstract" discussion is acceptable seems to condone dog whistling, especially given that protesting much of that speech could be considered "redefining words or misinterpreting statements in a nakedly disingenuous way", as that coded redefinition by the speaker is literally what dog whistles require, but seems disingenuous outside of that context.

That's true and the nature of language is such that there are constantly evolving dog whistles and methods of expression, but dog whistles aren't directed harrassment so I would basically allow them. Feel free not to vote for a dog whistling politician but I don't think one should not employ/fire/cancel someone for dog whistling that they believe some unfashionable or objectionable view.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#133

Post by anonymous_cowar »

When I taught, I blogged anonymously as did many of the other teachers who blogged at the same time as I did. It was a means of preserving our jobs and enabling us to speak candidly about the challenges we faced. Some of us knew each other's secret identities and I once had someone post a comment on the blog identifying me based on clues they were able to piece together from my posts (I immediately deleted the comment). I post this anonymously now because even though I no longer teach, the blog still exists and I'd still prefer not to have those posts connected with me.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#134

Post by anonms-coward »

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?

Well here is a sample for you:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/07/a-new-low-in-...

Re: Blog Anonymously

#135

Post by coderintherye »

munificent wrote: post #125
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…

A primary reason you might want to read something written anonymously is because it provides important, actionable information that is not available elsewhere. And the reason that information is only provided anonymously is because that information helps me but harms some other powerful group. If, for example, someone posts a video of human body parts being ground up to make sausage at Mr. Fred's Delicious Sausage fa…

But then again, what if it's Mr. Fred's jaded ex-business partner who posted the blog and the video was faked?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#137

Post by zimablue »

karpierz wrote: post #124
Aqua wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who shall be the judge of what is right and what is wrong? An internet mob? If an unknown woman issues a public twitter statement that she's been abused, is it OK to get the alleged offender cancelled before a court trial? What if they are innocent? How do you un-cancel somebody? You don't. That's why the cancel culture is ridiculous and needs to end.

Would you like to judge how limited my speech should be? For example, if someone feels me up, should I be allowed to post on Facebook detailing the encounter? Am I allowed to name them? Can I tag their employers? If I read about someone claiming that they've been felt up, can I forward it to my friends? Can I notify my employer if they're working at the same company as me? Essentially, can you determine a line where…

Yeah it ends when you make a statement about someone that accuses them of a crime or otherwise libels them, in the UK at least. If someone has committed a crime, we have courts. We've been doing this for centuries.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#138

Post by hombre_fatal »

femiagbabiaka wrote: post #102
hombre_fatal wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JK Rowling is a good example of middlebrow views getting you and anyone who can be associated with you in trouble. She has widely-held opinions like trans-women should be respected, but they are different from women. But if you log on to Twitter, she's vilified so much as a "transphobe" that people have been attacked for merely signing the same open-letter that she signed. https://twitter.com/emilyvdw/status/12805803…

JK Rowling is a good example of quite the opposite — someone who uses flowery language to insinuate pretty heinous things about trans people, and then pretend she’s said something innocuous. At any rate, you can’t cancel a multi-millionaire.

You'd have to be more specific about the rest of your post. What exactly is heinous?

But the litmus test for whether cancel culture exists isn't whether you can cancel a millionaire, but to see how people react to what she said. Like writing a public letter to your employer to express disapproval for a coworker who signed the same Harper letter.

I'll side with Paul Graham on the matter. Here he replies to AOC: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1281626457693982724 36min ago.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#139

Post by efa »

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…

At the moment I can't see any of it's features when someone like David Shor is fired for publishing facts of a study looking at types of protest. https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1271166899666079744?lang=e...

Re: Blog Anonymously

#140

Post by numpad0 »

teddyh wrote: post #31
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? Once again: Who is harmed by a "Real Names" policy? https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Re...

That is a very detailed list but I think it’s awkwardly missing “normal men”.

Cancels occurring to a normal, well paid, stable person into jobless of even into suicide aren’t negligible events. In fact isn’t it happening to university professors right now?

Identities without mob support is a universal weakness no matter your social protectedness/minority statuses.

Post reply on HN