Blog Anonymously • Hacker News Board

Re: Blog Anonymously

#141

Post by Proziam » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:50 PM UTC

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…

Falsely calling people you don't like evil to cause them harm or for you own economic gain should result in jail time and compensation for the victim.

As of now, we're so afraid of stopping people from coming forward that we've allowed those with evil intentions to weaponize our empathy.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#142

Post by anonms-coward » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:51 PM UTC

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.

What are the "heinous" things she said? I think she is the recepient of heinous things, not the originator of them. She is just bringing to light some issues which someone not in her position (rich, difficult to fire or cancel) can't even talk about. (Another less famous author got fired just for tweeting IStandWithJKRowling. )

If you think it is heinous that a group oppressed since millennia (women) feels uncomfortable if any man who self ids as a women is allowed access to women's private spaces, I don't know what to tell you.

Also, this all ignores other stuff argued by trans activists like the cotton ceiling (a lesbian is a transphobe if she doesn't feel attracted to trans women)

Re: Blog Anonymously

#143

Post by Emma_Goldman » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:52 PM UTC

newacct583 wrote: post #101

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that its implicit values are generally egalitarian, or at least aspire to be egalitarian, but I don't think there's a clear left-right split. My concern is not that we shouldn't be egalitarians. I'm a socialist; my avatar is named after a famous anarchist. It's that there is a culture of debate - 'cancel culture' - that betrays several flaws. Should we value debate and engage with those we disagree with or ig…

Clearly we should value debate. Clearly we "should" persuade people we disagree with. The question is whether we should be forced to. If I'm an employer, should I be forced to hire people who I personally find unpersuadably vile? That's the "anti-cancel" position, right? I can't fire you, even if you're an asshole. If I run a forum (like HN, or Reddit), I can't ban people even if they're "debating" in a way that is d…

> 'Clearly we should value debate. Clearly we "should" persuade people we disagree with. The question is whether we should be forced to.'

So you agree with the criticisms I made of cancel culture?

> 'If I'm an employer, should I be forced to hire people who I personally find unpersuadably vile?'

I don't think this is a helpful example, for two reasons. First, it is generally accepted that employers should have more latitude in the grounds on which they hire, than the grounds on which they fire. This reflects the fact that we are generally more concerned with actions of commission (e.g. killing someone) than omission (e.g. failing to give someone life-saving drugs). If we ask instead, 'Should you fire someone because they believe transgender women shouldn't be admitted into female sports', or 'Should you fire someone because they believe in the aggressive extradition of illegal immigrants', or 'Should you fire someone because they watch Fox news', it's much less clear-cut.

Secondly, and more to the point, what is at issue is rarely cancel culture among employers, but the way in which cancel culture pressures employers to fire people.

> 'If I run a forum (like HN, or Reddit), I can't ban people even if they're "debating" in a way that is disruptive and driving off users? That too, is the "anti-cancel" position as far as I can see. How do you square this? Be specific. Tell me the rule you want to enforce so that no one gets "cancelled" but we aren't swamped by garbage in online forums.'

I haven't thought about it, but my initial answer: I think the rules on large community websites like Reddit and HN should be to sanction abuse, hate speech (understood roughly along the lines of current British law), and various activities which undermine the aim of the website - e.g. persistent trolling, systematic lying, spamming adverts.

> 'It absolutely does. Because if you can't cite me[1] someone who got "cancelled" who isn't "vile and awful", then doesn't it mean the whole "problem" doesn't exist?'

You seem to think that the only evidence of cancel culture is the complete destruction of the lives of individuals. But those only the most extreme of cases. I just gave you a less extreme but far more representative case: the Guardian journalist that I read being harassed this morning (her name is Helen Pidd). Every time I go on Twitter I see a constant stream of tribalism, abuse and retributivism - these are not rare occurrences, they are omnipresent.

Take a more prominent case: J.K. Rowling's post on transgenderism. I disagree with 90% of what she wrote in that post. But I think her arguments should be engaged with, people should try and persuade her and those like her, that we should not abuse and deplatform her, and I don't think she is evil or malignant because of what she wrote.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#144

Post by tw04 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

Aqua wrote: post #115

tw04 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech. What planet do you live on that you think everyone else should have to both listen to what you say, and then not "punish" you for it? If you tell your wife she looks fat, she's probably not having sex with you that evening. If you call someone a racial slur, they're probably both going to tell everyone they know about what you said, and refuse to inter…

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.

So do you have an example of someone being accused by one anonymous twitter user of sexual assault and subsequently had their career and life ruined?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#145

Post by ativzzz » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

efa wrote: post #128

ativzzz wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not any different from republicans calling liberals libtards, antifa and communists whenever someone talks about medicare for all. Both sides do it to each other, right wingers just complain about it more because the majority of people who control social media platforms tend to be left leaning. In general, people only want free speech for things they want to say, but not for things they disagree with.

Yes, but has an open Antifa supporter ever been denied college entrance or attending a conference because of that support? Or lost their job?

Not quite Antifa but here's an example of a Harvard grad losing her consulting job due to threatening violence against people who say "all lives matter" [1]

https://nypost.com/2020/07/01/harvard-grad-claira-janover-lo...

Re: Blog Anonymously

#146

Post by godelski » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:54 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…

> I only have one example of why;

I think there are plenty of reasons why. But if someone's arguments are good, it does not matter who they are. If someone doesn't want the limelight, that is fine. I mean look here, my handle isn't my name. Though I wouldn't call it exactly anonymous/secret either.

> it's more difficult for people to engage with a nuanced opinion.

It is more difficult, but recognize that a common fallacy is "my opinion is nuanced, and yours is simple."

Which you experience here

> ascribed a set of beliefs to me which I did not hold

There's a tactic that I've found that has a decent success rate. The key comes down to that language is messy and that it is difficult to capture someone's nuanced position quickly. Your brain fills in missing information and does the best it can to figure out what the other person is trying to say. There's three parts to communication: what you mean, what you say, and what is heard. So if you don't know that these things are different and that your brain is filling in stuff (that this goes both ways) you're going to have a difficult time communicating, especially in a divided time with extra tribalism. This is essentially why divide and rule/conquer tactics work, because we are actually unable to communicate with one another.

So if you recognize this and when it is happening, stop the conversation. Divert and establish a foundation. "Hey, I think we're having some miscommunication. When you mean x do you mean f(x) or g(x)?" Then you listen carefully and don't interrupt (I bet they will develop nuance, if not they will add more later). At some point it is natural for you to speak again and address the misunderstanding and explain your nuanced point. If they start interrupting calmly explain "Hey, I have a nuanced point and I do not feel like I'm being able to finish an idea and thus we won't be on the same page and both be frustrated. I would like to finish the idea first." Because you listened to them carefully before and gave them time they now feel obliged to do this. The whole conversation has slowed down but everyone is now speaking the same language and hostility is gone. The pace will naturally pick back up.

As an example I was talking with my roommate the other night and we were getting heated. I had to apply this method and basically say "Hey, we're throwing in too many things at once. I don't feel like I can finish an idea before I address a specific issue. It is impossible to for me to talk about 30 different and nuanced subjects at once." He did slow down. Mind you he also said "Well that's how people speak, I guess we can just handle that many topics." Don't let that kind of thing phase you, because if you want to have a real conversation you have the be the better person. This is probably the hardest part (let someone make themselves the asshole and let them realize it, you don't always have to point it out).

tldr: disengage, slow down, reestablish definitions, reengage.

But if you want to fight, win, or get one up on the other person, these techniques will not help you accomplish that.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#147

Post by efa » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

newacct583 wrote: post #76

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

The definition of vile is getting ridiculous. Today its seems anyone is a "violent racist" if they don't agree 100% with BLM's mission statement. I'm sorry, you have to live in a world where there are people who have different opinions.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#148

Post by krapp » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

zimablue wrote: post #129

krapp wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Freedom of speech as used idiomatically in speech generally means a certain level of freedom of reprisals from employers and society. "a certain level" implies the existence of an acceptable level of consequence, unless by that you mean "absolute." If so, why not simply state that? >Directed racial slurs is a straw man, almost noone believes in absolutist freedom of speech when it comes to directed harrassment, they…

It's not moving the goal posts, you seem to be creating a false dichotomy between: "support free speech" -> must support lack of reprisals for all free speech, including directed racial slurs "do not support free speech" -> must accept the current level and form of reprisals. Where most people who say they support free speech are, is this statement: "support free speech without reprisals, excluding directed harrassme…

You seem to believe the phrase "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" implicitly justifies all possible consequences. It doesn't, it merely implies that speech doesn't exist in a vacuum, and that the consequences of speech often, themselves, are as much a manifestation of free expression as the original speech.

Your own counterclaim, however, that "freedom from anything means freedom from the consequences of that thing" does not even allow for the reasonable, non-arbitrary consequences you're supporting, here.

You, I and tw04 are actually in violent agreement, but it seems your politics doesn't allow you to concede the possibility that the "other side" can hold a reasonable opinion.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#149

Post by femiagbabiaka » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:55 PM UTC

guygurari wrote: post #81

femiagbabiaka wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Here are examples of people who were cancelled without even saying anything [1]. One was due to a misunderstanding. Another was due to something a family member said. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firin...

I hadn't heard these stories, thank you! Sounds like we need bipartisan legislation for protecting political speech in the workplace, with some sensible limits.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#150

Post by GoblinSlayer » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:56 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…

>Free association is also a right that needs to be protected.

Does hiring process enjoy the right for free association? I'm pretty sure for employment specifically there's a huge chunk of legislation that governs it.