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

181–190 of 482 posts

Re: Blog Anonymously

#181

Post by waheoo »

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 really, really aren't.

Which rock have you been under?

In the last year I've seen 3 collegues fired and 2 have to issue public apologies on twitter.

For publically supporting trump.

Which then got turned into "I dont feel safe working with this person."

This is all pushed by the stasi level initiatives that comes out of our D&I team. Its hell to work under but I dont feel like chucking my career over it.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#182

Post by kbenson »

brightball wrote: post #166
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.

This is pretty analogous to the reasons why Scott Alexander from Slate Star Codex[1] used anonymity and the reasons he shut the blog down recently.

1: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-...

Re: Blog Anonymously

#183

Post by triceratops »

senderista wrote: post #161
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.

Race is a protected class. It's a protected class because it has been used to discriminate in the past and it's unchangeable.

Speech or opinions aren't a protected class for discrimination.

So your analogy isn't apt.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#184

Post by hombre_fatal »

femiagbabiaka wrote: post #176
hombre_fatal wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:…

“I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I…

> As far as Paul goes, I wonder who exactly he sees to be the powerless?

Why are only millionaires your candidates for who people who could be powerless in this situation instead of the vast majority of the non-millionaire population?

As for JK Rowling's essay, it's one of those things everyone should read for themselves. The vast majority of people reading it will not come to the conclusion that Rowling is anti-trans, and they will probably agree with her. Rather, there seems to be a lot more smoke than fire when you read it after hearing how anti-trans Rowling obviously must be.

I'm not a fan of the "dogwhistle" accusation. I just see it as a fashionable way to accuse someone of saying something that they didn't say. Like people claiming the Harper letter is clearly anti-trans when the only "trans" in it is "transgression": https://twitter.com/LLW902/status/1280547024014905346/photo/...

Re: Blog Anonymously

#185

Post by newacct583 »

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #143
newacct583 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

With all respect, you seem to be retreating here. I don't think I disagree with any of your remedies, they sound fine. They also sound like pretty much the way our society and internet culture already work.

So I can't tell what you're arguing against. If "cancel culture" isn't the giant problem you originally jumped into argue against, and our existing protections are already in place... what are you arguing against?

I'm not saying that people aren't jerks on the internet. I'm saying that (1) it does happen at anything like the scale people like to think of (i.e. there is not Great and Terrible Woke Conspiracy), and (2) the excesses that are happening, at the scale they're happening at, are just not something we can "fix" via any remedy.

And the Rowling thing seems like a complete misinterpretation on your part. HUGE quantities of ink have been spilled at this point (including on this very site) explaining why the trans-exclusionary position is hurtful and counterproductive to modern feminism. Don't tell me she wasn't engaged with productive discourse. Rowling herself did like half a dozen interviews on the subject! You're acting like no one was willing to listen to her, when that's absolutely not the case.

You're saying that because someone was an asshole that means the rest of us are too? J. K. Rowling wasn't "canceled" in any way that matters. She was just wrong.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#186

Post by kbenson »

Jolter wrote: post #157
senderista wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There are links sprinkled all throughout the comments of instances of people having views erroneously attributed to them and the public pressure causing them to lose their jobs. Here's one I just read.[1] How prevalent these are, and whether they outweigh any positive effects of the behavior (or if you even believe there are positive effects) is probably a more nuanced question.

1: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firin...

Re: Blog Anonymously

#187

Post by tristor »

I have often considered blogging anonymously because I do not feel free to write my nuanced philosophical views about the world anymore, as nuance is mostly dead in the public discourse and anything I write could easily offend someone and cause me problems. But I decided that if I believed something and I was willing to say it aloud, I should be willing to write it down with my name attached. In the end, it has had the effect somewhat of self-censure, because I know some things I cannot write down, so I won't say them aloud either, even though they're perfectly reasonable and not prejudicial. The flip side has been that it's freed me in other ways to be radically honest about who I am in my writing and has helped me to more carefully identify people who are worth attempting a rational dialogue with.

To a large degree, I think a lot of the challenges around nuance and offense-taking online are just a consequence of how communications being mediated by the Internet dehumanizes people. My experience has been that having a deep conversation over a drink in person generally leads to more positive outcomes, even with irreconcilable disagreements, than writing something online which can be excoriated on social media.

This article seems more focused on situations in which you are concerned about government action, but I think here in the West we've found that "cancel culture" and the like is more insidious and far-reaching in its own way.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#189

Post by jaccarmac »

waheoo wrote: post #181
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 really, really aren't. Which rock have you been under? In the last year I've seen 3 collegues fired and 2 have to issue public apologies on twitter. For publically supporting trump. Which then got turned into "I dont feel safe working with this person." This is all pushed by the stasi level initiatives that comes out of our D&I team. Its hell to work under but I dont feel like chucking my career over it.

Do you think that political engagement is a game with no consequences, or do you think that there is a point where it would be reasonable to feel unsafe around someone with particular political views?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#190

Post by throwaway894345 »

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 currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture.

> We really, really aren't.

Perhaps it would be better to say that there is a lot of powerful people who are working very hard to create such a culture, but they haven't yet fully achieved their mission. There's no clear definition for when something becomes "a culture of cancellation", but a lot of people are reporting that they are afraid to run afoul of the progressive party line for fear of repercussions. There are of course plenty of people who don't have this fear because they are better protected from progressive reach (either because their industry isn't overwhelmingly progressive or because they have enough power to be okay if the mob comes for them).

> 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". Does this mean there's no free speech? No, of course it doesn't.

Of course no one is talking about "calling your interviewer a cunt and not getting hired" when they talk about "cancel culture". Name one prominent instance wherein this happened and it was widely condemned as "cancel culture". This seems highly disingenuous.

When people talk about "cancel culture", they're talking about things like:

* a journalist is forced to repent for interview a black person who is happy about the BLM movement but wishes there was more concern about the daily non-police-perpetrated violence in his community

* a data scientist loses his job because he cited a prominent (black) academic's research about the efficacy of nonviolent and violent protests

* a utility company employee loses his job for accidentally making the "OK sign" without even knowing that the left was trolled into considering it to be a white power symbol

* https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/128148065056698777...

> I find it interminably frustrating that people (moreso on the right, and moreso in America, but neither exclusively) hold free speech above pretty much everything else. People have more than ONE right.

“Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.”

—U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut

Post reply on HN