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

161–170 of 482 posts

Re: Blog Anonymously

#161

Post by senderista »

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 if I’d rather not associate with Black folks at my work, I have the right to refuse to hire them? I’ll have to say, this is the first time I’ve heard the freedom-of-association argument against civil rights laws coming from the left.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#162

Post by efa »

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?

Threatening violence, yes that will get you in trouble (hopefully). A little different than just minding your business wearing a MAGA hat.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#163

Post by kbenson »

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.

No, its visibility gets reduced. It's not invisible. You can see that it's there, it's slightly harder to read.

Flagging a comment can make it invisible, and even then, only if you haven't set your account to show dead comments. Flagging and down voting are different, and flagging a comment because you disagree with but is otherwise not breaking any rules it is considered inappropriate here, while down voting is not.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#164

Post by lliamander »

tw04 wrote: post #98
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…

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…

> 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?

No one is forcing you to listen to anything. I'm sure you've never been forced to read r/TheDonald, or watch Alex Jones talk. If any friends on social media links you to a paper on psychological differences between the sexes being rooted in biology, you are free to ignore the link or block them all-together. If a coworker or employee starts talking about immigration restriction in a way that sounds vaguely xenophobic, you're free to ask them to keep that kind of political talk out of the workplace.

This is about the freedom that the rest of us have to choose to listen to others' speech, and to be free to engage with it and come to our own conclusion about 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 interact with you unless forced to.

Those are not relevant examples.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#165

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

zimablue wrote: post #132
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

I mean, that's literally what not voting for someone is - choosing to not hire them. But that's semantics.

I'm not sure how you draw the lines on all this - if someone is spending all day tell their Jewish co-worker they need to stop the "international bankers", is that OK? Is speaking hatefully in the abstract about a group of people acceptable?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#166

Post by brightball »

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…

It’s the same reason that many authors publish under a pseudonym.

A friend of mine is a teacher who has written a couple of books. He likes to publish them under a pseudonym because if a parent took exception with part of the story it could create an issue for him professionally.

In today’s climate, it’s hard to avoid offending somebody.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#167

Post by Proziam »

karpierz wrote: post #158
Proziam wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> False speech isn't protected.

It is to the extent that it isn't prosecuted as a matter of policy.

> Also, the parent comment made no claim that the statements made were true or false, just that there were accusation

And I'm saying "No, I think we ought to appropriately punish people who do make false claims" in response to the original question Would you like to judge how limited my speech should be?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#168

Post by mobilejdral »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #159
mobilejdral wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The recent opinion essay she wrote:

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-...

A rebuttal of that essay with citations:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1270787941275762689.html

And an article talking about the banning of the hate subreddit r/gendercritical:

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/06/29/reddit-bann-transphobi...

Re: Blog Anonymously

#169

Post by karpierz »

zimablue wrote: post #137
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…

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.

> Yeah it ends when you make a statement about someone that accuses them of a crime

Why should I avoid talking about something because it pertains to a criminal proceeding? If I get sexually assaulted, should I avoid reaching out to anyone for support? If a person cheated me out of money during a business transaction, should I avoid calling them out on it? If someone punches me, and the police decide not to press charges, do I avoid warning anyone?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#170

Post by senderista »

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?

Those opinions are currently stigmatized as “racist dogwhistles” and “white supremacy”. I’m generally pro-immigration myself, but I believe it’s possible to advocate for limited immigration without being a racist.
Post reply on HN