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

151–160 of 482 posts

Re: Blog Anonymously

#151

Post by jcelerier »

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?

so interesting, for me "throwing one's name" into things is definitely a negative. It's the content which matters, not the person :-) and hopefully I'm able to judge whether the content is good or not (else does it really matter that I read it anyways if I'm not even able to do that / fact check / etc. ?).

But then I come from a culture where the word "individualist" is an insult so maybe that has some influence.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#152

Post by senderista »

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…

Given recent incidents I’m sure we’re all familiar with, I would never consider writing on any controversial topic under my real identity. Why would I leave my family’s economic security at the mercy of malicious, ignorant mobs?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#153

Post by anonms-coward »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #138
femiagbabiaka wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:…

Not to mention the replies on his tweet are full of people arguing nonsense like "it seems you have something to hide" , and "cancelling means shutting down voices", not realising that people would be much less angry if cancellation meant twitter account cancellation and not losing one's jobs.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#154

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

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…

> 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 of speech "administered outside the law".

I think there is a distinction between speech as an insult directed at specific people and speech that tries to argue for a general idea or opinion (for example see "fighting words").

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

But we already limit it. For example, unless you are a religious institution hiring for a specific religious role, you cannot use "free association" to hire only members of your preferred religion. A church can require that it's pastor be a Christian. In-n-Out Burger cannot require that the cashier be a Christian.

If you look at the struggle for equality in the United States and elsewhere, the oppressed have relied on the right and principle of free speech to call attention to and better the injustice. The people in power, have heavily relied on the right of free association to preserve their privilege: for example clubs that only admitted men, or excluded Jews or Black people.

I find it interesting that in this time when we are so concerned about privilege, the right that has been used by the privileged ("Free Association") is being elevated while the right that has actually been used by the oppressed ("Free Speech") is coming under a lot of criticism.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#155

Post by godelski »

coderintherye wrote: post #135
munificent wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Everything should have some form of skepticism. The more ridiculous thing being presented, the more skepticism you should apply. Skepticism does not mean disbelief, but rather that you shouldn't just take things at face value and put on your critical thinking and analyst hat. Or as someone much wiser than me put it

> extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

We're already in a society where it is easy to control narratives and manipulate viewpoints. You don't need CGI or ML to do that.

Unfortunately it feels like we're in the habit that we apply scrutiny when things are simple and take at face when things are absurd.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#156

Post by matthewh806 »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #61
fsflover wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. >We really, really aren't. Yes, we are. Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22299156

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…

I don't really see how the example you've given of being downvoted can be equated to cancel culture.

You had and clearly still have the ability to express your views on this website so in what sense are you "cancelled"?

If people don't like what you say they're free to downvote it. It can be helpful if someone gives you some feedback on why they downvoted you, but its certainly not an obligation

Re: Blog Anonymously

#157

Post by Jolter »

senderista wrote: post #152
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…

Given recent incidents I’m sure we’re all familiar with, I would never consider writing on any controversial topic under my real identity. Why would I leave my family’s economic security at the mercy of malicious, ignorant mobs?

That doesn’t sound familiar at all to me. Can you give an example of such an incident?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#158

Post by karpierz »

Proziam wrote: post #141
karpierz wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

False speech isn't protected. Also, the parent comment made no claim that the statements made were true or false, just that there were accusation. I don't think that "people shouldn't knowingly lie" is a particularly hard stance on free speech.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#159

Post by hombre_fatal »

mobilejdral wrote: post #93
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…

> She has widely-held opinions like trans-women should be respected Um no. She has admitted to being part of the known trans hate group GenderCritical. Edit: not sure why I am getting downvoted. She uses talking points from the GenderCritial group when she writes and even mentions them by name and that group was banned by reddit for being a hate group.

This is the sort of vague "argument"-crafting I expect on Twitter but not on HN where you have unlimited words to make a point and add understanding to the world.

I googled "jk rowling gender critical" and all I see is a great google query if you want to find articles about how supposedly transphobic she is (without explaining what was specifically transphobic about what she said). If you're going to say someone has admitted to being part of a hate group, why not help us out and provide us some links?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#160

Post by ksdale »

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…

We have decided that there are limits to freedom of association, though, for example when it comes to discrimination. Forcing people to interact with others whose opinions they disagree with seems plausibly less imposing than forcing someone to interact with others whose religion they disagree with. I'm not sure this as clear-cut as you make it sound.

And I think it's quite the strawman to suggest that anyone believes that someone should be able to direct profanity at an interviewer and get hired, and I also don't think it's productive to equate "profanity" with "views that someone disagrees with."

Post reply on HN